STATE  OF  THE  UNION. 

; x 


__ 

"*"" 

UNIVEBSITY 


OF 


HON.  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS,  OF  ILLINOIS, 

IN  THE  SENATE,  JANUARY  3,  1861. 


The  Senate  bavin*  nr.rl  r  Allowing 

;;  reported  ('•  iioe  of  thirteen, 

appointed  to  consider  the  acritr.tc-1  and  distracted  condition 
of  the  couutry — 

Resolved,  Tint  the  committee  have  not  been  able  to 
•  •.!  pit;;  of  a.iju.itmout,  and  report 

that  fact  to  tK  .her  whh  the  journal  of  the 

committee: 

Mr.  DOUGLAS  said  : 

Mr.  PRESIDENT  :  No  act  of  my  public  life  has 
ever  caused  mo  so  much  regret  as  the  n 
of  voting  in  the  ;  ;.mittee  of  thirteen 

for  the  resolution  reporting  to  the  Senate  our 
inability  to  agree-  upon  any  general  plan  of  tiu- 
justinent.  which  would  >-<'.-torX'  peace  to  'he  coun 
try  und  insure  the  integrity  of  the  Union.  If 
we  wish  to  iiml; T.-t  u,d  the  real  causes  which 
have  produced  such  wit!  '-seated 

discontent  in  the  s!nv< -ho].':;.  re  must 

go  back  beyond  the  roc  •  ntial  election, 

and  trace  the  origin  and  hi>;ory  of  the  shivery 
agitation  from  the  p-.-i-iod  when  it  first  became 
un  active  element  in  Federal  politics.  Without 
fatiguing  the  Senate  with  t"dious  details,  I  may 
be  permitted  to  a<-umo,  without  the  fear  of  suc- 
C'.'S>i'ul  contradiction,  that  wiienever  the  Federal 
Government  has  attempted  to  decide  and  con 
trol  the  slavery  question  in  the  nowly  acquired 
Territories,  rtgardle-s  of  the  wishes  of  the  in 
habitants,  alienation  oi  ;  iioual  strife, 
and  discord  h;:vi-  CIK  IK  (1  ;  and  whenever  Con 
gress  has  refrained  from  such  interference,  har 
mony  and  fraternal  feeling  have  been  !'• 
The  whole  volume  of 'our  nation's  history  may 
be  confidently  anpeal<  d  to  in  support  of  this 
proposition.  The  most  i  instances  are 
the  fearful  sectional  con;  hich  brought 
the  Union  to  the  verge  of  disruption  in  1820, 
and  again  in  1850.  It  v  ;  itorial  ques 
tion  in  each  case  which  presented  the  chief 
points  of  difficulty,  becau.se  it  involved  the  irri 
gating  question  of  the  relative  political  power 
of  the  two  sections.  All  the  other  questions, 


which  entered  into  and  served  to  increase  the 
slavery  agitation,  were  deemed  of  secondary 
importance,  and  dwindled  into  insignificance  so 
soon  as  the  territorial  question  was  definitely 
settled. 

From  the  period  of  the  organization  of  the 
Federal  Government,  under  the  Constitution,  in. 
1789,  down  to  1820,  all  the  territorial  govern 
ments  had  been  organized  upon  the  basis  of 
non-interference  by  Congress  with  the  domestic 
institutions  of  the  people.  During  that  period 
several  new  Territories  were  organized,  includ 
ing  Tennessee,  Louisiana,  Missouri,  Mississippi, 
and  Alabama.  In  no  one  of  these  Territories 
did  Congress  attempt  to  interfere  with  the  ques 
tion  of  slavery,  either  to  introduce  or  exclude, 
protect  or  prohibit  it.  During  the  whole  of  this 
period  there  was  peace  and  good-will  between 
tiie  people  of  all  parts  of  the  Union  so  far  as 
the  question  of  slavery  was  concerned. 

But  the  first  time  Congress  ever  attempted  to 
interfere  with  and  control  that  question,  regard- 
less  of  the  wishes  of  the  people  interested  in  it, 
the  Union  was  put  in  jeopardy,  and  was  only 
saved  from  dissolution  by  the  adoption  of  the 
compromise  of  1820.  In  the  famous  Missouri 
controversy,  the  majority  of  the  North  de 
manded  that  Congress  should  prohibit  slavery 
forever  in  all  the  territory  acquired  from  France, 
extending  from  the  State  of  Louisiana  to  the 
British  possessions  on  the  north,  and  from  the 
Mississippi  to  the  Rocky  Mountains.  The  South 
and  the  conservative  minority  of  the  North,  on 
the  contrary,  stood  firmly  upon  the  ground  of 
non-intervention,  denying  the  right  of  Congress 
to  touch  the  subject.  They  did  not  ask  Con- 
Lo  interfere  for  protection  nor  for  any 
purpose  ;  while  they  opposed  the  right  and  jus 
tice"  of  exclusion.  Thus,  each  party,  with  their 
respective  positions  distinctly  defined — the  one 
for  and  the  other  against  congressional  inter 
vention — maintained  its  position  with  desperate 


persistency  until  disunion  seemed  inevitable, 
when  a  conipromi.se  was  effected  by  an  equita 
ble  partition  of  the  territory  between  the  two 
sections  on  the  line  of  36  deg.  30  min.,  prohib 
iting  slavery  on  the  one  side  and  permitting  it 
on  the  other. 

In  the  adoption  of  this  compromise,  each 
party  yielded  one  half  of  its  claim  for  the  sake 
of  the  Union.  It  was  designed  to  form  the 
basis  of  perpetual  peace  on  the  slavery  qaes- 
tion  by  establishing  a  rule  in  accordance  with 
which  all  future  controversy  would  be  avoided. 
The  line  of  partition  was  distinctly  marked  so 
far  as  our  territory  might  extend;  and,  by  irre 
sistible  inference,  the  spirit  of  the  compromise 
required  the  extension  of  the  line  on  the  same 
parallel  whenever  we  should  extend  our  territo 
rial  limits.  The  North  and  the  South — although 
each  was  dissatisfied  with  the  terms  of  the  set 
tlement,  each  having  surrendered  one  half  of  its 
claim — by  common  consent  agreed  to  acquiesce 
in  it,  and  abide  by  it  as  a  permanent  basis  of 
peace  upon  the  slavery  question.  It  is  true, 
that  there  were  a  few  discontented  spirits  in 
both  sections  who  attempted  to  renew  the  con 
troversy  from  time  to  time  ;  but  the  deep 
Union  feeling  prevailed,  and  the  masses  of  the 
people  were  disposed  to  stand  by  the  settle 
ment  as  the  surest  means  of  averting  future  dif 
ficulties. 

Peace  was  restored,  fraternal  feeling  returned, 
and  we  were  a  happy  and  united  people  so  long 
as  we  adhered  to,  and  carried  out  in  good  faith. 
the  Missouri  compromise,  according  to  its  spirit 
as  well  as  its  letter.  In  1845.  when  Texas  was 
annexed  to  the  Union,  the  policy  of  an  equita 
ble  partition  on  the  line»of  36  deg.  30  min.  was 
adhered  to,  and  carried  into  effect  by  the  exten 
sion  of  the  line  as  far  westward  as  the  new  ac 
quisition  might  reach.  It  is  true,  there  was 
much  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  the  propriety 
and  wisdom  of  annexing  Texas.  In  the  North 
the.measure  was  opposed  by  large  numbers  upon 
the  distinct  ground  that  it  was  enlarging  the 
area  of  slave  territory  within  the  Union  5  and 
in  the  South  it  probably  received  much  addi 
tional  support  for  the  same  reason  ;  but,  while 
it  may  have  been  opposed  and  supported,  in 
some  degree,  north  and  south,  from  these  con 
siderations,  no  considerable  number  in  either 
section  objected  to  it  upon  the  ground  that  it 
extended  and  carried  out  the  policy  of  the  Mis 
souri  compromise.  The  objection  was  solely  to 
:the  acquisition  of  the  country,  and  not  to  the  ap 
plication  of  the  Missouri  compromise  to  it,  if 
acquired.  No  fair-minded  roan  could  deny  that 
every  reason  which  induced  the  adoption  of  the 
line  "in  1820,  demanded  its  extension  through 
Texas,  and  every  new  acquisition,  whenever  we 
enlarged  our  territorial  possessions  in  that  di 
rection.  No  man  would  have  been  deemed 
faithful  to  the  obligations  of  the  Missouri  com 
promise  at  that  day.  who  was  opposed  to  its  ap 
plication  to  future  acquisitions. 

The  record  shows  that  Texas  was  annexed  to 
the  Union  upon  the  express  condition  that  the 
Missouri  compromise  should  be  extended  and 


made  applicable  to  the  country,  so  far  as  ou: 
new  boundaries  might  reach.  The  history  of; 
that  acquisition  will  show  that  I  not  only  sup 
ported  the  annexation  of  Texas,  but  that  I 
urged  the  necessity  of  applying  the  Missouri 
compromise  to  it,  for  the  purpose  of  extending 
it  through  New  Mexico  and  California  to  the 
Pacific  ocean,  whenever  \ye  should  acquire  those 
Territories,  as  a  means  of  putting  an  end  to  the 
slavery  agitation  forever. 

The  annexation  of  Texas  drew  after  it  the 
war  with  Mexico,  and  the  treaty  of  peace  left 
us  in  possession  of  California  aud  New  Mexico. 
This  large  acquisition  of  new  territory  was 
made  the  occasion  for  renewing  the  Missouri 
controversy.  The  agitation  of  1849-50  was  a 
second  edition  of  that  of  1819-20.  It  was  stimu 
lated  by  the  same  motives,  aiming  at  the  same 
ends,  and  enforced  by  the  same  arguments. 
The  northern  majority  invoked  the  intervention 
of  Congress  to  prohibit  slavery  everywhere  in 
the  Territories  of  the  United  States — both  sides- 
of  the  Missouri  line — south  as  well  as  north  of 
of  36  deg.  30  min.  The  South,  together  with  a 
conservative  minority  in  the  North,  stood  firmly 
upon  the  ground  of  non-intervention,  denying 
the  right  of  Congress  to  interfere  with  the  sub 
ject,  but  avowing  a  willingness,  in  the  spirit  of 
concession  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  the  Union, 
to  adhere  to  and  carry  out  the  policy  of  an 
equitable  partition  on  'the  line  of  36  deg.  3(T' 
min.  to  the  Pacific  ocean,  in  the  name  sense  in 
which  it  was  adopted  in  1820,  and  according  to 
the  understanding  when  Texas  was  annexed  in 
1845.  Every  argument  and  reason,  every  eou- 
sideration  of  patriotism  and  duty,  which  in 
duced  the  adoption  of  the  policy  in  1820,  and' 
its  application  to  Texas  in  1845-,  demanded  its' 
application  to  California  and  New  Mexico  in 
1848.  The  peace  of  the  country,  the  fraternal 
feelings  of  all  its  parts,  the  safety  of  the  Unioiv 
all  were  involved. 

Under  these  circumstances,  as  chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Territories,  I  introduced  into  the 
Senate  the  following  proposition,  which  was- 
adopted  by  a  vote  of  33  to  21  in  the  Senate,- 
but  rejected  in  the  House  of  Representatives.- 
I  read  from  the  Journal,  August  10,  1848,  page 
563  : 

'•On motion  by  Mr.  DOUGLAS  to  arnend  the  bill,  section* 
fourteen,  line  one,  by  inseyting  after  the  word  'enacted; ' 

'•That  the  line  of  36  deg.  SO  min.  of  north  latitude,' 
known  us  the  Missouri  compromise  line,  as  defined  by  the 
eighih  section  of  an  act  entitled  "  An  Act  to  authorize  the 
people  of  the  Missouri  Territory  to  form  a  constitution' 
and  State  government,  and  for  the  admission  of  sack  Stars' 
into  the  Union  on  an  eaual  footing  with  tl>e  original 
States,  and  to  prohibit  slavery  in  certain  Territories,  ap 
proved  March  6,  1820,'  b-,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  de 
clared  to  extend  So  the  Pacific  ocean ;  ami  the  said  eighth" 
section,  together  with  the  compromise  therein  effeeted,  ir 
hereby  revived,  and  declarer]  to  he  in  fall  force  and  bind 
ing,  for  the  tHtnre  organisation  of  the  Territories  of  thdC; 
United  States,  in  the  same  sense,  and  with  the  same  any 
derstaudiug  with  whieh  it  was  originally  adapted: 

"It  was  determined  in  the  affirmative— yeas  38,  nays  21* 

"On  motion  by  Mr,  BALDWIN,  the  yeas  and  nays  being 
desired  by  OB*  fifth  of  the  Senators  present,  those  wb<r 
Toted  in  the  affirmative  are: 

"  Messrs.  Atchison,  Badger,  Bell,  Beuton.  Berrien,  Bor 
land,  Bright,  Butler,  CtUhoun,  Cameron,  Dayis  of  Missi»- 


I  /.Tld,  Fnoto.  ILtn- 

:i<iustou,  IIuiitiT.  J.ihnson  of  Murvlund,  Johnson 
•of  Louisiana,  Johuson  of  (uic^i*,  Kinir,  Lewis,  Mun-'iiiu. 
Mason,  Motcalf,  IVurc-v.  Sebastian,  iSpruauCo,  Sturgeon, 
Tv.rncy. -Uii'lcnv  K-d. 

"Those  who  Tot.-il  in  tl->-  iifr.it-vo  are: 

•-».  Allen.  Athertoi),  Bildsvin.  Bradbury,  Breese, 
Clark,  0<>r\vii\.  [>?.\<s  of  Mnssuchusrtru,  Dayton,  L>ix, 
Dodge,  Fdch.  <-:r<vn.  [la!..-.  Hav.lin,  Miller,  Niies,  Phelps, 
t/pluim.  AValker.  Webster. 

lie  proposed  amendment  was  agreed  to." 

The  bill,  as  amended,  was  then  ordered  to  be 
engrossed  for  a  third  reading,  by  u,  vote  of  33 
io4  was  ;ead  the  third  tiiK?>;  and  passed 
•on  the  saiae  day.  By  i_lie  ctu-.-i-'cation  of  the 
vo*cs  foi-  my  proposition  to  carry  out  the  Mis 
souri  compromise,  it  wi'l  bo  -seen  that  ail  the 
southern  Senators,  twenty-six  in  number,  includ 
ing  Mr.  Caihoun,  voted  in  the  affirmative}  and 
of" the  northern  Senators,  seven  voted  in  the 
•atfrms.tivc  and  twenty-one  iu  the  negative. 
The  properitkm  was  rejected  in  the  House  of 

sentartiyea  i>y  u!rr:<!.-4  it,  sectional  vote,  tbe 
whole  -South  voting  for  it,  and  a  large  majority 
<of  tin-  Vortb  -.«.  gainst  ik 

is  the  rejection  of  that  proposition — the 
repndiatie;--  cf  the  policy  of  an  equitable  parti 
tion  cf  the  territory  between  the  two  sections, 
on  the  line  of  36  d.eg.  SO  in  in; — which  reopened 
"^hc'fiood  gates  of  slavery  agitation  and  deluded 
4he  whole  country  with  sectional  strife  and  bit 
terness,  until  (be  Union  was  again  brought  to 
the  v-rge  ef  disruption,  before  the  swelling 
tide  of  bitter  waters  could  be  turned  back,  and 

-.    an4  prejudice  could  be  made  t©  give 

;•  reason  and  patriotism. 
•Had  the  Senate's  preposition  been  concurred 
in  by  the  House  of  Representatives :  had  the 
{policy  -of  an  equitable  partition  beeii  adhered 
to  ;  had  the  Missouri  compromise  been  carried 
-out  in  good,  faith,  through  our  newly  acquired 
•territory.,  to  tbe  Pacific  oct- an,  there  would  have 
been  an  end  to  the  slavery  agitation  forever, 
•For  the  line  of  partition  between  free  and  slave 
territory  being  once  firmly  established  and  dis 
tinctly  4efmed  from  tbe  Atlantic  to  the  Pa 
cific,  all  new  acquisitions,  whether  on  the  North 
or  the  South,  would  have  conformed  to  that  ad 
justment,  without  exciting  the  passions,  or 
wounding  the  sensibilities,  or  disturbing  tke 
•harmony  x»f  our  people.  I  do  not  think  it 
would  have  made  any  material  difference  in 
Tespect  to  the  condition  of  the  new  States  to  be 
formed  out  of  each  territory,  for  I  have -always 
believed,  a,nd  eften  said,  that  the  existence  or 
non-existeece  of  African  slavery  depends  more 
upon  the  necessities  ef  clh::uK',  health,  and 
.prodactioRs,  tkan  Gponcong-ressrenal  and  terri 
torial  enactments.  It  was  i-a  ref'ereace  to  this 
great  truth  that  Mr.  Webster  said  that  the  con- 
•ditioRof  all  the  territory  acquired  from  Mexico, 
«)  far  asiihe  qnestion  of  shivery  was  concerned, 
was  irrevocably  fixed  and  settled  by  an  irre- 
pealtiblelaw  —  tbe  law  of  climate,  and  ef  physF- 
•cal  geography,  and  of  the  formation  of  the 
earth.  You  might  as  well  attempt  by  act  ef 
CJongress  to  jorapel  cotton  to  grow  upon  the 
tops  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  and  rice  upon  the 
•summits  of  the  Sierra  Nevada,  as  to  compel 


slavery  'to  exist,  by  congressional  enactment, 
where  neither  climate,  nor  health,  nor  produc 
tions,  ?/ill  render  it  necessary  and  self-snstain- 
ing.  Yet  tire  desire,  on  the  one  hand,  for  the 
extension  of  slavery  into  regions  where  it  is 
physically  impossible  to  sustain  it,  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  to  abolish  and  exclude  it  from  those 
countries  where  tbe  white  man  'cannot  endure 
the  climate  and  «ultiva-te  the  soil,  threatens  to 
keep  the  agitation  of  this  question  perpetually 
in  Congress,  until  the  passions  of  tbe.  people 
shall  become  &6  inflamed  that  civil  war  and  dis 
union  shall  become  inevitable.  It  is  the  terri 
torial  •question — whether  slavery  shall  exist  in 
those  vast  regions,  in -utter  disregard  of  tbe 
wishes  and  necessities  of  tho  people  inhabiting 
tbem-—  that  is  convulsing  and  dissolving  the  Re 
public  :  a  question  in  which  we  have  no  direct 
interest,  about  which  we  have  very  little  knowl 
edge,  and  which  the  people  of  those  Territories 
must  and  will  eventually  decide  for  themselves, 
and  to  suit  themselves,  no  matter  what  Congress 
may  do.  But  for  this  territorial  question  there 
would  be  very  litlle  difficulty  in  settling  tbe 
other  matters  in  controversy.  The  Abolition 
ists  could  never  endanger  the  peace  of  the 
couetry  or  the  existence  of  the  Union  .by  the 
agitation  ol  the  slavery  question  in  tbe  Dis 
trict  of  Columbia  by  itself,  or  in  the  dock 
yards,  forts,  and  arsenals  in  tfle  siaveholding 
States,  or  upon  the  fugitive  slave  law,  or  upon 
any  minor  issue,  or  upon  them  all  together,  if 
the  territorial  question  could  be  finally  and 
irrevocably  settled. 

I  repeat,  it  was  the  repudiation  of  the  policy 
of  the  Missouri  compromise,  the  refusal  to  ap 
ply  it  to  the  territory  acquired  from  Mexico, 
when  offered  by  me,  and  supported  by  the  whole 
South,  in  August,  1S4-8,  which  reopened  the 
agitation  and  revived  the  Missouri  controversy. 
The 'compromise  of  1820  once  repudiated,  tbe 
policy  of  an  equitable  partition  of  the  territory 
abandoned,  the  proposition  to  extend  it  to  the 
Pacific  being  rejected,  and  the  original  contro 
versy  reopened  with  increased  bitterness.  wicU 
party  threw  itself  back  on  its  original  extreme 
position  —  the  one  demanding  its  exclusion 
everywhere,  and  the  other  insisting  upon  its 
right  to  go  everywhere  in  the  Territories,  re 
gardless  of  the  wishes  of  the  people  inhabiting 
them.  All  the  arguments,  pro  and  con.,  used 
in  18L9-20  were  repealed  iu  1819-50.  Tue 
question  was  the  same,  and  the  relative  position 
of  the  two  sections  the  saiae. 

Such  was  the  condition  of  things  at  the  ©.pen- 
ing  of  the  session  of  1849-50,  when  Mr.  Clay 
resumed  his  seat  in  this  body. 

The  purest  patriots  in  tbe  land  b«d  become 
alarmed  for  tbe  fate  of  the  Republic.  The  im 
mortal  Clay,  whose  life  had  been  -devoted  to 
the  rights,  interests,  and  glory  of  his  country, 
had  'retired  to  the  shades  of  Ashland  to  p  r- 
parefor  another  and  a  befcter  world.  When,  iu 
his  retirement,  hearing  the  harsh  and  discwxiaiit, 
notes  of  sectional  strife  and  disunion,  he  con 
sented,  at  the  earliest  solicitation  of  bis  coun 
trymen,  to  -resume  his  seat  -in  tbe  'Seft&te,  the 


theatre  of  his  groat  deeds,  to  fee  if,  by , his  ex 
perience,  his  wisdom,  the  renown  of  his  great 
name,  and  his  strong  hold  upon  the  confidence 
and  affections  of  the  American  people,  he  could 
not  do  something:  to  restore  peace  to  a  distract 
ed  country.  From  the  moment  of  his  arrival 
among  ns  be  became,  by  common  consent,  and 
as  a  matter  of  course,  the  leader  of  Union  men. 
His  first  idea  was  to  revive  and  extend  to  the 
Pacific  ocean  the  Missouri  compromise  line, 
with  the  same  understanding  and  legal  effect  in 
which  it  had1  been  adopted  in  1820,  and  contin 
ued  through  Texas  in  1845.  I  was  one  of  his 
humble  followers  and  trusted  friends  in  endea 
voring  to  carry  out  that  policy,  and  in  connec 
tion  with  others,  at  his  special  request,  carefully 
canvassed  both  houses  of  Congress  to  ascertain 
whether  it  was  possible  to  obtain  a  majority 
vote  in  each  Honse  for  the  measure.  We  found 
no  difficulty  with  the  southern  Senators  and 
Representatives,  and  could  secure  the  co-opera 
tion  of  a  minority  from  the  North  ;  but  not 
enough  to  give  us  a  majority  in  both  Houses. 
Hence  the  Missouri  compromise  was  abandoned 
by  its  friends,  NOT  from  choice,  but  from  INABILI 
TY  to  carry  it  into  effect  in  good  faith.  It  was  with 
extreme  reluctance  that  Mr.  Clay,  and  those  of 
us  who  acted  with  him  and  shared  his  confi 
dence,  were  brought  to  the  conclusion  that  we 
must  abandon^ from  inability  to  carry  out,  the 
line  of  policy  which  had  saved  the  Union  in 
1820,  and  given  peace  to  the  country  for  many 
happy  years. 

Finding  ourselves  unable  to  maintain  that 
policy,  we  yielded  to  a  stern  necessity,  and 
turned  our  attention  to  the  discovery  of  some 
other  plan  by  which  the  existing  difficulties 
could  be  settled,  and  future  troubles  avoided. 
I  need  not  detail  the  circumstances  under  which 
Mr.  Clay  brought  forward  his  plan  of  adjust 
ment,  which  received  the  sanction  of  the  two 
Houses  of  Congress  an  i  the  approbation  of  the 
American  people,  and  is  familiarly  known  as  the 
compromise  measures  of  1850.  These  measures 
were  designed  to  accomplish  the  same  results  as 
the  act  of  1820,  but  in  a  different  mode.  The 
leading  feature  and  chief  merit  of  each  was  to 
banish  the  slavery  agitation  from  the  Halls  of 
Congress  and  the  arena  of  Federal  politics. 
The  act  of  1820  was  intended  to  attain  this 
end  by  an  equitable  partition  of  the  Territories 
between  the  contending  sections.  The  acts  of 
1850  were  designed  to  attain  the  same  end  by 
remitting  the  whole  question  of  slavery  to  the 
decision  of  the  people  of  the  Territories,  sub- 
j'.-ct  to  the  limitations  of  the  Constitution,  and 
'  let  tl'e  Federal  courts  determine  the  validity 
a. i  .d  constitutionality  of  the  territorial  enact 
ments  from  time  to  time,  as  cases  should  arise 
and  appeals  be  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  Slates.  The  one.  proposed  to 
settle  the  question  by  a  geographical  line  and 
an  equitable  partition  ;  and  the  other  by  the 
principles  of  popular  sovereignty  in  accordance 
with  the  Constitution.  The  object  of  both  be 
ing  the  same,  I  supported  each  in  turn  as  a 
means  of  attaining  a  desirable  end. 


Aft'  r  the  compromise  measures  of  1850  had' 
become  the  law  of  the  ln;;d.  those  who  had  op 
posed  their  enactment  appealed  to  their  constit 
uents  to  sustain  them  in  their  opposition,  and 
implored  them  not  to  acquiesce  in  the  princi 
ples  upon  which  they  were  foundcd,,and  never 
to  coa.se  to  war  upon  them  until  they  should  be 
anu-lled  and  effaced  from  the  statute-book. 
The  contest  bd'ore  the  people  was  fierce  and 
bitter,  accompanied  sometimes  with  acts  of  vio 
lence  and  intimidation  ;•  but,  fortunately.  Mr. 
Clay  lived  long  enough  to  feel  and  know  that 
his  last  great  efforts,  for  the  peace  of  the  coun 
try  and  the  p  rpotuity  of  the  Union — the 
crowning  acts  of  n,  brilliant  and  glorious  ca 
reer  in  the  public  service — had  met  the  appro 
val  and  received  the  almost  unanimous  in 
dorsement  of  his  grateful  countrymen.  The 
repose  which  the  country  was  permitted  to  en 
joy  for  a  brief  period  proved  to  be  a  temporary 
truce  in  the  sectional  conflict,  and  not  a  perma 
nent  peace  upon  the  slavery  question.  The 
purpose  of  reopening  the  agitation  for  a  con 
gressional  prohibition  of  slavery  in  all  the  Ter 
ritories  whenever  an  opportunity  or  excuse 
could  be  had,  seems  never  to  have  been  aban 
doned  by  those  who  originated  the  scheme  for 
partisan  purposes,  in  181!).  and  were  baffled  in 
their  designs  by  the  adoption  of  the  Missouri 
compromise  in  1820 ;  and  who  renewed  the  at 
tempt  in  1848,  but  were  again  doomed  to  suff-r 
a  mortifying  defeat  in  the  adoption  of  the  com 
promise  measures  of  1850.  The  opportunity 
and  pretext  for  renewing  the  agitation  was  dis 
covered  by  those  who  had  never  abandoned 
the  design,  when  it  became  necessary,  in  1854, 
to  pass  the  necessary  laws  for  the  organization 
of  the  Territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska. 
The  necessity  for  the  organization  of  these 
Territories,  in  order  to  open  and  protect  the 
routes  of  emigration  and  travel  to  California 
and  Oregon  could  not  be  denied.  The  mea 
sure  could  not  be  postponed  longer  without  en 
dangering  the  peace  ol  the  frontier  settlements 
and  incurring  the  hazards  of  an  Indian  war, 
growing  out  of  the  constant  collisions  between 
the  emigrants  and  the  Indian  tribes-  through 
whose  country  they  were  compelled  to  pass. 

Early  in  December.  1853,  Senator  Dodge,  of 
Iowa,  introduced  a  bill  for  the  organization  of 
the  Territory  of  Nebraska,  which  was  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Territories,  of  which  I 
was  chairman.  The  committee  did  not  volun 
teer  their  services  on  the  occasion.  The  bill 
was  referred  to  us  by  the  vote  of  tha  Senate,  and 
our  action  was  in  discharge  of  a  plain  duty  im 
posed  upon  us  by  an  express  command  of  the 
body. 

The  first  question  which  addressed  itself  tc* 
the  calm  and  deliberate  consideration  of  the 
committee  was  :  upon  what  basis  shall  the  or 
ganization  of  the  territory  be  formed?  Whether 
upon  the  theory  of  a  geographical  line  and  an 
equitable  partition  of  the  territory  in  accord 
ance  with  the  compromise  of  1820,  which  had 
been  abandoned  by  its  supporters  not  from 
choice,  but  from  our  inability  to  carry  it  out ; 


5 


*OT  npon  the  principle  of  non-intervention  and 
popular  sovereignty,  aivnrding  to  the  compro 
mise  measures  of  !,S")  ).  which  had  taken  the 
place  of  the  Missouri  cuuiprouiis  ? 

The  committee,  upo;t  mature  deliberation. 
and  with  gieat  unanimity,  decided  that  all  fu 
ture  territorial  organizations  should  be  formed 
n  tiie  principles  and  mod'.-I  of  the  compro 
mise  measures  of  l-S.jtf.  i'lasmueh  as  in  the  recent 
presidential  election  (18,52)  both  of  the  great 
political  parties  of  the  country,  (Whig  and  De 
mocratic,)  of  which  the  Senate  was  composed, 
stood  pledged  to  those  measures  as  a  substitute 
ft)  r  the  act  of  1820  ;  UIK!  the  committee  in 
structed  me,  as  their  organ.  to  pn  pare  a  report 
and  draft  a  substitute.  i'«v  j\ir.  Do;ige:s  bill  in 
•accordance  with  these  views.  I  will  now  read 
from  the  record,  at  the  iu.zarii  of  being  some 
what  tedious,  in  ord<.r  that  the  Senate  and  the 
•country  may  judge  \viih  what  fidelity  I  per 
formed  this  duty  : 

".Ternary  4th.  1S/4.  Mr.  D  'UuiAS  made  the  following 
report:  '-The  Committee  "ii  Territories,  to  win  soli  was  re 
ferred  a  bill  for  an  ace  to  establish  the  Territory  of  Ne 
braska,  have  jiiven  the  .same  that  serious  and  deliberate 
consideration  whieli  its  trreat  importance  demands,  and 
beg  leave  to  r>'\v  rt  it  hack  to  the  Senate,  \vi  I  h  various 
amendments.  in  ih  i  lorui  <tf  ,.i  substitute  for  the  bill. 

"The  principal  anieudm  nts  which  your  committee 
deem  it  their  duty  to  .••Minn.Mid  to  the  favorable  action  of 
the  Senate,  in  :i  special  ivr-.irt,  are  those  in  which  the 
principles  established  by  the  compromise  measures  of 
1S50,  so  far  as  they  are  applicable  to  territorial  organiza 
tions,  are  proposed  to  be  aUirmcd  and  earri-d  into  practi- 
•cal  operation  within  the  limits  of  the  new  Territory. 

'"The  wisdom  of  those  measures  is  attested,  not  less  bv 
their  .salutary  and  beneficial  effects  in  alb.ying  sectional 
•agitation  and  restoring  peace  and  harmony  to  an  irritated 
aud  distracted  people,  Mian  by  the  coidial  and  almost  uni 
versal  approbation  with  wiiich  they  have  been  received 
avid  sanctioned  by  the  whole  country.  In  the  judgment 
of  your  committee,  t'tox",  m^iture*  were  intended  to  have 
•af'ir  more  comprehensive  iin-.!..  <:/.•••  i'i,rl):<j  e.jj'";t  than  a  mere 
adjustment  of  the  ••  .  '..iw/onl  <if  the  rectnt  ac- 

qttisition  of  Mtxiean  territory.  THEY  WERE  DESIGNED  TO 

ErfTAIU.ISH  CiMTAIN  GREAT  PXIM.'IPLurt,  VftilGd  WoULD  NOT 
ONLY  FURNISH  ABEQUATK  REMTDI'iIs  FOR  EXWIIXQ  EVILS.  BUT 
IN  ALL  TIMK  TO  COME  AVOID  THE  PERILS  OF  A  SIMILAR  AGITA 
TION,  BY  -WITHDRAWING  TUB  (JCK8TION  OF  SLAVERY  FROM  THE 

HALLS  or  COXGKKS.S  AND  THE  POLITICAL  AREXA.  AND  COMMIT- 

TIM!  IT    TO    THE  ARBITR.A  M  i  NT   OF    THOSE  WHO    WERE  IMMKM-  { 
ATKLY  INTERESTED  IN,  AND  M.:  >.\E  IlEi-POXSIBLS  FJR  ITS  CON3E     I 

QUKNCES".  With  the  view  of  conforming  their  action  to 
what  they  regard  the  settled  policy  of  The  Government. 
*aiiction"d  by  the  Approving  voice  of  the  American  peo-  | 

ur  committee  have  deem  -d  it  their  duty  to  incorpor 
ate  and  perpetual  e  in  their  t.-rritorinl  bills  the  principled 
and  spirit  of  those  mcasvuv*.'' 

After  reviewing  the  provisions  of  the  legis 
lation  of  185'J.  the  committee  conclude  as  fol 
lows  : 

'•From  th'-.-i"  pr.>vi-i<ms  i;  is  apparent  that  the  com 
promise  measures  of  185(3  affirm  and  rest  upon  the  follow 


ing  pr 

"First,  That  all   questions  pertaining  to  slavery  in  the 
Territories,  and  in  the  new  Mates  t<>  be  fornu-d  ;;i 
are  to  l>j  left  to  the  i{i'cisii.n  of  the  people  residing  there 
in.  by  their  appropriate  representatives,  to  be  chosen  by 
them  for  that  purpose 

"second,  That:,  -a,1!  c:nr«  inv^Ivi  u:  tiMe  to  slaves.'  and 
'questions  of  p.  r^ikiial  f.  -ed  mi."  are  r-ferre,!  t  >  the  ;v!jn- 
•dication  of  the  local  tnbu;ia!s.  with  the  right  of  appeal  to 
tl.e  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

"Third,  That  the  provision  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
Uuitvd  Stites,  in  resp'-rt  to  tiiiri  rives  from  service,  is  to  !>.• 
carried  into  faithful  execuUoaJD  all  '  the  organized  Tur- 
the  same  as  .111  the  States, 


Tlio  substitute  f-r  the  bill  whicli  yonr  committee  have 
"prepared,  and  which  is  commended  to  the  favorable  ac 
tion  of  the  Senate,  proposes  t>  cirri/  those  propositions 
und  principles  into  practical  operation.  IN  THE  PRECISE 

LANGUAGE   OF   THE   COMPROMISE   MEASURES   OF   1850." 

No  sooner  was  this  report  and  hill  printed 
and  laid  npon  the  tables  of  Senators,  than  aa 
address  was  prepared  and  issued  over  the  signa 
tures  of  those  party  leaders  who  had  always 
denounced  •'  the  Missouri  compromise  as  ti 
critn  ;  against  freedom,  and  a  compact  with  in 
famy,''  in  which  the  bill  was  "arraigned  as  a 
UTOSS  violation  of  a  sacred  pledge  ;"  "as  a 
criminal  betrayal  of  precious  rights  ; "  and  the 
report  denounced  as  "a  mere  invention,  de 
signed  to  cover  up  from  public  reprehension 
meditated  bad  faith." 

The  Missouri  compromise  was  "  infamous," 
in  their  estimation,  so  long  as  it  remained  upon 
the  statute-book  and  was  carried  out  in  good 
faith,  as  a  means  of  preserving  the  peace  of  the 
country  and  preventing  the  slavery  agitation  ia 
Congress.  But  it  suddenly  became  "  a  sacred 
pledge,"  a  '•  solemn  compact  for  the  preserva 
tion  of  precious  rights,"  the  moment  they  suc 
ceeded  in  preventing  its  faithtul  executfou  aud 
in  causing  it  to  be  abandoned  when  it  ceased  to 
be  an  impregnable  barrier  against  slavery  agi 
tation  and  sectional  strife.  The  bill  against 
which  the  hue  and  cry  was  raised,  and  the  cru 
sade  preached,  did  not  contain  a  word  about 
the  Missouri  compromise,  nor  in  any  manner 
refer  to  it.  It  simply  allowed  the  people  of 
the  Territory  to  legislate  for  themselves  on  all 
rightful  subjects  of  legislation,  and  left  them 
free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  insti 
tutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the 
Constitution.  So  far  as  the  Missouri  act,  or  any 
jther  statute,  might  be  supposed  to  conflict 
>vith  this  right  of  self-government  in  the  Terri 
tories,  it  was,  by  inference,  rendered  null  and 
'»id  to  that  extent,  and  for  no  other  purpose. 
Sjveral  weeks  afterwards,  when  a  doubt  was 
suggested  whether,  under  the  bill  as  it  stood, 
the  people  of  the  Territory  would  be  authorized 
to  exercise  this  right  of  self-government  upon 
the  slavery  question,  during  the  existence  of  the 
lerritort'il  government,  an  amendment  was  adopted, 
oa  my  motion,  for  the  sole  and  avowed  purpose 
of  removing  that  doubt  and  securing  that  right, 
in  accordance  with  the  compromise  measures  of 
1850,  as  stated  by  me  and  reported  in  the  de 
bates  at  the  time.  The  amendment  will  be 
found  in  the  fourteenth  section  of  the  act,  aud 
is  as  follows  : 

"That  the  Constitution' and  all  the  laws  of  tho  United 
States  whicli  are  not  locally  inapplicable,  shall  have  the 
same  force  *nd  effect  within  the  said  Territory  of  Nebras 
ka  as  elsewhere  within  the  United  States,  except  tho 
eighth  section  of  the  .act  preparatory  to  the  admission  of 
Missouri  into  the  Union,  approved  March  6,  1820,  toAt'cA, 
being  inconsistent  with  Ike  principle  of  nonintervention 
by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  States  and  Territories  A3 
RECOGNIZED  BT  THE  LEGISLATION  OF  1850,  commonly  called 
the  compromise  nu-asiiies,  \y>  hereby  declared  inoperative 
and  void;  it  being  the  true  intent  aud  meaning  of  this 
act  nut  to  legislate  slavery  into  any^ Territory  or  State, 
nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people  there 
of  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  dometlif 
institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Cou- 
Btilutioa  of  the  United  States."  . 


In  my  opinion  this  amendment  did'  not  I 
change  the  legal  effect  of  the  bill  as  reported  J 
by  the  committee.  Its  object  was  to  render  its 
meaning  certain,  by  removing  all  doubts  in  re 
gard  to  the  right  of  the  people  to  exercise  the 
privileges  of  self-government  on  the  slavery 
question,  as  well  as  all  others  consistent  with 
the  Constitution,  during  their  territorial  condi 
tion,,  as  well  as  when  they  should  become  a 
State.  Prom  that  day  to  this,  there  has  been  a 
fierce  and  desperate  straggle  between  the  sup 
porters  and  opponents  of  the  territorial  policy 
inaugurated  under  the  auspices  of  Mr.  Clay,  in 
1850,  a-nd  affirmed  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act 
in  1854 — the  one  to  maintain  and  the  other  to 
overthrow  the  principle  of  non-intervention 
and  popular  sovereignty,  as  the  settled  policy 
of  the  government  in  reference  to  the  organiz 
ation  of  Territories,  and  the  admission  of  new 
States.  This  sketch  of  the  origin  and  pro 
gress  of  the  slavery  agitation  as  an  element 
of  political  power  and  partisan  warfare. 
covers  the  entire  period  from  the  organization 
of  the  Federal  Government  under  the  Constitu 
tion,  in  1789.  to  the  present,  and  is  naturally 
ddvided»into  three  parts  : 

First.  From  1789,  when  the  Constitution 
went  into  operation,  to  1819-20.  when  the  Mis 
souri  controversy  arose,  the  Territories  were  all 
organized  upon  the  basis  of  non-intervention  by 
Congress  with  the  domestic  affairs  of  the  people, 
and  especially  upon  the  question  of  African 
slavery.  During  the  whole  of  this  period,  do 
mestic  tranquility  and  fraternal  feeling  pre 
vailed. 

Second.  From  1820,  when  the  Missouri  com 
promise  was  adopted,  to  1848  and  1850,  when 
it  was  repudiated  and  finally  abandoned,  all  the 
Territories  were  organized  with  reference  to  the 
policy  of  art  equitable  partition  between  the  two 
sections  upon  the  line  of  36  deg.  ?>0  min.  During 
this  period  there  was  no  serious  difficulty  upon 
the  territorial  question,  so  long  as  the  Missouri 
compromise  was  adhered  to,  and  carried  out  in 
good  faith. 

Third.  From  1850,  when  the  original  doc 
trine  of  ntfn-intervention,  as  it  prevailed 
during  the  first  thirty  years,  was  reestablished 
as  the  policy  of  the  Government  in  the  organ 
ization  of  Territories,  and  the  admission  of  new 
States,  to  the  present  time,  there  has  been  a 
constant  struggle,  except  for  a  short  interval, 
to  overthrow  and  repudiate  the  policy  and  prin 
ciples  of  the  compromise  measures  <:f  1850.  for 
the  purpose  of  returning  to  the  old  doctrine  of 
congressional  intervention  for  the  prohibition 
of  slavery  in  all  the  Territories,  south  as  well 
as  north  of  the  Missouri  line,  regardless  of  the 
wishes  and  condition  of  the  people  inhabiting 
the  country. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  I  feel  authorized  to 
reaffirm  the  proposition  with  which  I  com 
menced  my  remarks,  that  whenever  the  Federal 
Government  has  attempted  to  control  the  slav 
ery  question  in  our  newly-acquired  Territories, 
alienation  of  feeling,  discord,  and  sectional 
strife,  have  ensued;,  and  whenever  Congress 


has  refrained  from  suefr  interference, 
harmony,  and  good  will  have  returned.  The 
conclusion  I  draw  from  these  premises  is,  that 
the  slavery  question  should  be  banished  forever 
from  the  Hulls  of  Congress  and  the  arena  of 
Federal  politics  by  an  irrep"al;vble  constitu 
tional  provision.  I  have  deemed  this  exposi 
tion  of  the  origin  and  progress  of  the  slavery 
agitation  essential  to  a  full  comprehension  of 
the  difficulties  with  which  we  are  are  surrounded,, 
and  the  remedies  for  the  evils  which  threaten 
the^  disruption  of  the  Republic.  The  immedi 
ate  causes  which  have  precipitated  the  southern 
country  into  revolution,  although  inseparably- 
connected  with,  and  flowing  from,  the  slavery1 
agitation,  whose  history  I  have  portrayed,  are 
to  be  found  in  the  result  of  the  recent  presi 
dential  election.  I  hold  that  the  election  of 
any  man.  no  matter  who.  by  the  American  peo 
ple,  according  to  the  Constitution,  furnishes 
no  cnuse,  no  justification,  for  the  dissolution  of 
the  Union.  Bat  we  cannot  close  our  eyes  to- 
the  fact  that  the  southern  people  have  received 
the  result  of  that  election  as  furnishing  conclu 
sive  evidence  that  the  dominant  party  of  the 
North,  which  is  so  soon  to  take  possession  of 
the  Federal  Government  under  that  election,, 
are  determined  to  invade  and  destroy  their  con 
stitutional  rights.  Believing  that  their  domes 
tic  institutions,  their  hearth-stones,  and  their 
family  altars,  are  all  to  be  assailed,  at  least  by- 
indirect  means,  and  that  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  is  to  be  used  for  the  inauguration  of  a. 
line  of  policy  which  shall  have  for  its  object  th^- 
ultimate  extinction  of  slavery  in  all  the  States,, 
old  as  well  as  new.  south  as  well  as  north,  the 
southern  people  are  prepared  to  rush  wildly,. 
madly,  as  I  think,  into  revolution,  disunion,, 
war,  and  defy  the  consequences,  whatever  they 
may  be,  rather  than  to  wjit  for  the  develop 
ment  of  events,  or  submit  tamely  to  what  they 
think  is  a  fatal  blow  impending  over  them  and 
all  they  hold  dear  on  earth.  It  matters  not.  so 
far  as  we  and  the  peace  of  the  country  and  the 
fate  of  the  Union  are  concerned,  whether  these 
apprehensions  of  the  southern  people  are  real! 
or  imaginary,  whether  they  are  well  founded  or 
wholly  without  foundation,  so  long  as  they  be 
lieve  them  and  are  determined  to  act  upon 
them.  The  Senator  from  Ohio,  [Mr.  WADE,} 
whose  speech  was  received  with  so  much  favor 
by  his  political  friends  the  other  day,  referred; 
to  these  serious  apprehensions,  and  acknowl 
edged  his  belief  that  the  southern  people  were 
laboring  under  the  conviction  that  they  were 
well  founded.  He  was  kind  enough  to  add  that 
he  did  not  blame  the  southern  people  much  for 
what  they  were  doing  under  this  fatal  misappre 
hension  ;  but  cast  the  whole  blame  upon  the 
northern  Democracy  ;  and  referred  especially 
to  his  colleague  and  myself,  for  having  misre 
presented  and  falsified  the  purposes  and  policy 
of  the  Republican  party,  and  for  having  made 
the  southern  people  be-lieve  our  misrepresenta 
tions!  He  docs  not  blame  the  southern  people 
for  acting  on  their  honest  convictions  in  resort- 
ing,  to  revolution  to  avort  an  impending  bui 


imaginary  calamity.  No  ;  lie  does  n  )t  blame 
them,  because  they  believe  in  the  existence  of 
•ihe  danger  ;  yet  he  will  do  DO  act  to  undeceive 
them  ;  will  take  no  step  to  relieve  their  painful 
apprehensions;  and  will  furnish  no  guarantees, 
no  security  against  the  dangers  which  they  be 
lieve  to  exist,  and  t''<  -  of  which  he 
denies;  but,  on  the  contrary,  he  demands  un 
conditional  submission,  thivatens  war,  and  talks 
about  armies,  navies,  and  military  force,  for  the 
purpose  of  preserving  the  Union  and  enforcing 
the  laws!  I  submit  whether  this  mode  of 
treating  the  question  is  not  calculated  to  con 
firm  the  worst  apprehensions  of  the  southern 
people,  and  force  them  into  tke  most  extreme 
measures  of  resistance ! 

I  regret  that  the  Senator  from  Ohio,  or  any 
other  Senator,  should  have  deemed  it  consis 
tent  with  his  duty,  under  present  circumstances, 
to  introduce  partisan  politics,  and  attempt  to 
manufacture  partisan  capital  out  of  a  question 
involving  the  peace  and  safety  of  the  country. 
-I  repeat  what  I  have  said  on  another  occasion, 
that,  if  1  know  myself,  my  action  will  be  influ 
enced  by  no  partisan  considerations,  until  we 
shall  have  rescued  the  country  from  the  perils 
which  environ  it.  But  since  the  Senator  has 
attempted  to  throw  the  whole  responsibility  of 
the  present  difficulties  upon  the  northern  Demo 
cracy,  and  has  charged  us  with  -misrepresenting 
and  falsifying  the  purposes  and  policy  of  the 
Republican  party,  and  thereby  deceiving  the 
southern  people.  1  feel  called  upon  to  repel  the 
charge,  and  show  that  it  is  without  a  shadow 
of  foundation.  No  man  living  would  rejoice 
more  than  myself  in  the  conviction,  if  I  could 
only  be  canvinced  of  the  fact,  that  I  have  mis 
understood,  and  consequently  misrepresented, 
the  policy  and  designs  of  the  Republican  party. 
Produce  the  evidence  and  convince  me  of  my 
error,  and  I  will  take  more  pleasure  in  making 
the  correction  and  repairing  the  injustice,  than 
I  ever  have  taken  in -denouncing  whutl  believed 
to  be  an  unjust  and  ruinous  policy. 

With  the  view  of  ascertaining  whether  I  have 
misapprehended  or  misrepresented  the  policy 
and  purposes  ot  the  Republican  party,  I  will 
now  inquire  of  the  Senator,  and  yield  the  floor 
for  an  answer:  whether  it  is  not  the  policy  of 
his  party  to  confine  slavery  within  its  present 
limits  by  the  action  of  the  Federal  Government  ? 
"Whether  they  do  net  intend  to  abolish  and  pro 
hibit  slavery  by  act  of  Congress,  notwithstand 
ing  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  the 
contrary,  in  ail  the  Territories  we  now  possess, 
or  may  hen. aft  T  acquire  ?  Whether  he  and  his 
.party  are  in  favor  of  returning  to  their  master 
the  fugitive  slaves  that  may  escape  ?  In  short, 
I  will  give  the  .Senator  an  opportunity  now  to 
say 

Mr.  WADE.     Mr.  President 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  On.-  "th-r  question,  and  I 
will  give  way. 

Mr.  WADE.     V«ry  well. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS,  'l  will  give  the  Senator  an 
opportunity  of  saying  no\v  whviher  it  is  not  the 
.policy  of  his  p.irty  to  exert  all  the  powers  of 


the  Federal  Government  under  the  Constitu 
tion,  according  to  their  interpretation  of  the 
instrument,  to  restrain  or  cripple  the  institution 
of  slavery,  with  a  view  to  its  ultimate  extinc 
tion  in  all  the  States,  old  as  well  as  new,  south 
as  well  as  north.  p  •  *  .1 

Are  not  these  the  views  SWp^flWs^W^Qr 
party,  as  proclaimed  by  their  leaders,  and  un 
derstood  by  the  people,  in.  speeches,  addresses, 
sermons,  newspapers,  and  public  meetings? 
Now.  I  will  hear  his  answer. 

Mr.  WADE.  Mr.  President,  all  these  ques 
tions  are  most  pertinently  answered  in  the 
speech  .the  Senator  is  protesting  to  answer.  I 
have  nothing  to  add  to  it.  If  he  will  read  my 
speech,  he  will  find  my  sentiments  upon  all 
those  questions. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Mr.  President,  I  did  not 
expect  an  unequivocal  answer.  I  knew  too  well 
that  the  Senator  will  not  deny  that  each  of 
these  interrogatories  do  express  his  individual 
policy  and  the  policy  of  the  Republican  party 
as  he  understands  it.  I  should  not  have  pro 
pounded  the  interrogatories  to  him  if  he  had 
not  accused  me  and  the  northern  Democracy  of 
having  misrepresented  the  policy  of  the  Repub 
lican  party,  and  with  having  deceived  the  south 
ern  people  by  such  misrepresentations.  The 
most  obnoxious  sentiments  I  ever  attributed 
to  the  Republican  party,  and  that  not  in  tbo 
south  but  in  northern  Illinois  and  in  the  strong 
holds  of  Abolitionism,  was  that  they  intended 
to  exercise  the  powers  of  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  with  a  view  to  the  ultimate  extinction  of 
slavery  in  the  southern  States.  I  have  ex 
pressed  my  belief,  and  would  be  glad  to  bo  cor 
rected  if  I  am  in  error,  that  it  is  the  policy  of 
that  party  to  exclude  slavery  from  all  the  Ter 
ritories  we  now  possess  or  may  acquire,  with  a 
view  of  surrounding  the  slave  States  with  a 
cordon  of  abolition  States,  and  thus  confine  t?ie 
institution  within  such  narrow  limits  that,  when 
the  number  increases  beyond  the  capacity  of 
the  soil  to  raise  food  for  their  subsistence,  the 
institution  must  end  in  starvation,  colonization 
or  servile  insurrection.  I  have  often  exposed 
the  enormities  of  this  policy,  and  appealed  to 
the  people  of  Illinois  to  kuow  whether  this 
mode  of  getting  rid  of  the  evils  of  slavery 
could  be  justified  in  the  name  of  civilization, 
humanity,  and  Christianity?  I  have  often  used 
these  arguments  in  the  strongest  abolition  por 
tions  of  the  North,  but  never  in  the  South.  The 
truth  is,  I  have  always  been  very  mild  and  gen 
tle  upon  the  Republicans  when  addressing  a 
southern  audience ;  for  it  seemed  ungenerous 
to  say  behind  their  backs,  and  where  they  dare 
not  go  to  reply  to  uie.  those  things  which  I  was 
in  the  habit  of  saying  to  their  faces,  and  in  the 
presence  of  their  leaders,  where  they  were  in 
the  majority. 

But  inasmuch  as  I  do  not  get  a  direct  answer 
from  the  Senator  who  makes  this  charge  against 
(hi!  northern  Democracy,  as  tu  tiie  purposes  of 
that,  party  to  use  the  power  of  the  Federal  Gov 
ernment  under  their  construction  of  the  Consti 
tution,  with  a  view  to  the  ultimate  extinction  of 


8 


slavery  in  the  States,  I  will  turn  to  the  record 
of  their  President  elect,  and  see  what  he  says 
on  that  subject.  The  Republicans  have  gone 
to  the  trouble  to  collect  and  publish  in  pamphlet 
form,  under  the  sanction  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  the 
debates  which  took  place  between  him  any  my 
self  in  the  senatorial  canvass  of  1858.  It  may 
not  be  improper  here  to  remark  that  this  publi 
cation  is  unfair  towards  me,  for  the  reason  that 
Mr.  Lincoln  personally  revised  and  corrected 
his  own  speeches,  without  giving  me  an  oppor 
tunity  to  correct  the  numerous  errors  in  mit^p. 
Inasmuch  as  the  publication  is  made  under  the 
sanction  of  Mr.  Lincoln  himself,  accompanied 
by  a  letter  from  him  that  he  had  revised  the 
speeches  by  verbal  corrections,  and  thereby  up- 
proved  them,  it  becomes  important  to  show 
what  his  views  are.  since  he  is  in  the  daily  habit. 
of  referring  to  those  speeches  for  his  present 
opinions. 

Mr.  Lincoln  was  nominated  for  United  States 
Senator  by  a  Republican  State  convention  at 
Springfield  in  June,  1858.  Anticipating  the 
nomination,  he  had  carefully  prepared  a  writ 
ten  speech,  which  he  delivered  on  the  occasion, 
and  which,  by  order  of  the  convention,  was 
published  among  the  proceedings  as  containing 
the  platform  of  principles  upon  which  the  can 
vass  was  to  be  conducted.  More  importance  is 
due  to  this  speech  than  to  those  delivered  under 


opponents  of  slavery  must  first  prevent  the  fur 
ther  spread  of  it.  But  that  is  not  all.  What 
else  must  they  do  ? 

"And  place  it  where  the  public  mind  can  rest  iu  th* 
belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction." 

The  ultimate  extinction  of  slavery,  of  which 
Mr.  Lincoln  was  then  spiking,  related  to  the 
States  of  this  Union.  Ho  had  reference  to  the 
southern  States  of  this  Confederacy  ;  for,  in 
the  next  sentence,  he  says  that  the  States  must 
all  become  one  thing  or*all  the  other — "  old  as 
well  as  new,  north  as  well  as  south  J; — showing 
that  he  meant  that  the  policy  of  the  Republi 
can  party  was  to  keep  up  this  agitation  in  the 
Federal  GrOvernmeiit  until  slavery  in  the  States 
was  placed  in  the  process  of  ultimate  extinc 
tion.  Now,  sir.  when  the  Republican  Commit 
tee  have  pnblisbed  nn  edition  of  Mr.  Lincoln's 
speeches  containing  sentiments  like  these,  and 
circulated  it  as  a  cunip-ign  document,  is  it  sur 
prising  that  the  people  of  the  South  should- 
suppose  that  b  •  and  intended  to 

carry  out  the  !  nd  announced  ?' 

I  regret  the  necessity  which  has  made  it  my 
duty  to  reproduce  these  dangerous  and  revolu 
tionary  opinions  of  the  President  elect.  No 
consideration  could  have  induced  me  to  have 
done  so  but  the  attempt  of  his  friends  to  de 
nounce  the  policy  wh'ch  Mr.  Lincoln  has  boldly 


the  excitement  of  debate  in  joint  discussions  advocated,  as  gross  calumnies  upon  the  Repub- 
by  the  exigencies  of  the  contest.  The  first  tew  lican-  party,  and  as  base  inventions  by  the.north- 
paragraphs  which  I  will  now  read,  may  be  taken  I  crn  Democracy  to  exeit  rebellion  in  the  south- 
•as  a  fair  statement  of  his  opinion  and  feelings  j  ern  country.  I  should  like  to  find  one  Senator 
upon  the  slavery  question.  Mr  Lincoln  said  :  i  on  that  sMe  of  iber,  in  the  confidence 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  if  we  |  of  tlie  President  elect,  who  will  have  the  hardi- 
could  first  know  where  wo  are  and  whither  we  are  tend-  i  hood  to  deny  that  Mr.  Lincoln  Staikls  pledged 
ing,  we  could  better  judge  what  to  da  and  how  to  do  it.  I  by  his  public  Spseehei?,  to  which  he  now  refers 
We  are  now  tar  into  the  fifth  year  since  a  policy  wan  ini-  constantly  as  containing  his  present  opinions 


tiated  with,  the  avowed  object  and  confident  promise  of 
putting  an  end  to  the  slavery  agitation.  Under  the  oper 
ation  of  that  policy,  that  agitation  has  not  only  not  ceased 
hut  has  constantly  augmented.  In  my  opinion  it  will!  |n 


not  cease  until  a  crisis  shall  have  been  reached  and  passed. 
A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand!  I  believo 
this  Government  cannot  endure  permanently  hall'  nlave 
ami  half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dissiuve.l 
— I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall — but  I  do  expect  it  will 
eease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become  all  one  tiling  or  all 
the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of  slavery  will  arrest 
tSse  further  spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public 
jnind  shaH  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  »s  in  the  course  of  ul 
timate-  extinction,  or  its  advocates  will  push  it  forward, 
till  it  shall  alike  become  lawful  in  all  the  States,  old  as- 
well  as  new,  North  as  well  as  South." 

There  you  are  told  by  the  President  elect 
that  this  Union  cannot  permanently  endure  di- 
viied  into  free  and  slave  States  j  that  these 
States  must  all  become  free  or  slave,  all  become 
one  thing  or  all  become  the  other  ;  that  this 
agitation  will  never  cease  until  the  opponents 
of  slavery  have  restrained  its  expansion,  and 
have  placed  it  where  the  public  mind  will  be 
satisfied  that  it  will  be  in  the  course  of  ulti 
mate  extinction.  Mark  fche  language  : 

"Either  the  opponents  of  slavsry  "will  arrest  the  fur 
ther  spread  of  it'?" 

We  are  now  told  that  the  object  of  the  Re 
publican  party  is  to  prevent  the  extension  o!' 
slavery.  What  did  Mr.  Lincoln  say  ?  That  the 


to  carry  out  the  pol'cy  indicated    in  the  speech 
from  which  I  have  read.     I  take  great  pleasure- 
,  however,  that.  I  do   not  believe  the 


rights  of  the  South  will  materially  suffer  under 
the  administration  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  I  repeat 
what  I  have  Ba  ;>;iier  occasion,  that 

neither  he  i  :!i  have  the  power  to 

do  any  ael  -on them  rights  and 

interests,  if  H  be  preserved,  and? 

the  southern  States  shall  retain  a  fall  delega 
tion  in  both  Houses  of  Congress.  With  a  ma 
jority  against  thorn  in  this  body  and  in  the 
•  'of  Represented! vs.  they  can  do  no  act,, 
except  to  cuf'Tce  the  laws,  without  the  consent 
of  those  to  whom  the  South  has  confided  her  in 
terests,  and  even  his  appointments  for  that  pur 
pose  are  Subject  to  our  advice  and  confirmation,, 
1)  sMes.  I  still  indulge  the  hope  that  when  Mr. 
Lincoln  shall  assume  the  high  responsibilities- 
which  will  soon  devolve  upon  him,  he  will  be- 
fully  impressed  with  ihe  necessity  of  sinking 
the  politician  in  HKUI,  the  partisan  iu 

the  patriot,  and  re^u'd  the  obligations  whici? 
he  owes  to  his  country  as  paramo-tint  to  those 
of  his  party.  In  view  of  these  consideration? 
I  had  indu:  id  hope  that  the  people,  of 

the  southern  Sr-ates  would  have  been  content  ta 
remain,  in  the  Union  and,  defend  their  rights 


under  the  Constitution,  instead  of  rushing 
madly  iuto  revolution  and  disunion. .as  a  refuge 
from  apprehended  dangers  which  may  not  exist. 
But  this  apprehension  has  become  wide-spread 
and  deep-seated  in  the  southern  people.  It  has 
taken  possession  of  the  southern  mind,  sunk 
deep  in  the  southern  heart,  and  filled  them  with 
the  conviction  that  their  firesides,  their  family 
altars,  and  their  domestic  institution?,  are  to  be 
ruthlessly  assailed  through  the  machinery  of  the 
Federal  Government,  The  Senator  from  Ohio 
says  he  does  not  blame  you.  southern  Senators, 
nor  the  southern  people,  for  believing  those 
things  ;  and  yet,  instead  of  doing  those  acts 
which  will  relieve  your  apprehensions,  and  ren 
der  it  impossible  that  your  rights  should  be  in 
vaded  by  Federal  power  under  any  administra 
tion,  he  threatens  you  with  war,  armies,  mili 
tary  force,  under  pretext  of  enforcing  the  laws 
and  preserving  the  Union.  We  are  told  that 
the  authority  of  the  Government  must  be  vindi 
cated  ;  that  the  Union  must  be  preserved  :  that 
rebellion  must  be  put  down  ;  that  insurrections 
must  be  suppressed,  and  the  laws  must  be  en 
forced.  I  agree  to  all  this.  I  am  in  favor  of 
doing  all  these  things  according  to  the  Consti 
tution  and  laws.  No  man  will  go  farther  than 
I  to  maintain  the  just  authority  of  the  Govern 
ment,  to  preserve  the  Union,  to  put  down  re 
bellion-,  to  suppress  insurrection,  arid  to  enforce 
the  laws.  1  would  use  all  the  powers  conferred 
by  the  Constitution  for  this  purpose.  But,  in 
the  performance  of  these  important  and  deli 
cate  duties,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  those 
powers  only  must  be  used,  and  such  measures 
employed,  as  are  authorized  by  the  Constitu 
tion  and  laws.  Things  should  be  called  by  the 
right  names  ;  and  facts,  whose  existence  can  no 
longer  be  denied,  should  be  acknowledged. 

Insurrections  and  rebellions,  although  unlaw 
ful  and  criminal,  frequently  becoiue  successful 
revolutions.  The  strongest  Governments  and 
proudest  monarchs  on  earth  have  often  been  re 
duced  to  the  humiliating  necessity  of  recogniz 
ing  the  existence  of  Governments  de  facto,  al 
though  not.  de  jure,  in  their  revolted  States  and 
provinces,  when  rebellion  has  ripened  into  suc 
cessful  revolution,  and  the  national  authorities 
have  been  expelled,  from  their  limits.  In  such 
cases  the  right  to  regain  possession  and  exact 
obedieuce  to  the  laws  remains  i  but  the  exer 
cise  of  thaj;  right  is  war,  and  must  be  governed 
by  the  laws  of  war.  Such  was  the  relative  con 
dition  of  Great  Britain  and  the  American  colo 
nies  for  seven  years  after  the  Declaration  of  In, 
dependence;  The  rebellion  had  progressed  and 
matured  into  revolution,  with  a  Government  de 
facto,  and  an  army  and  navy  to  defend  it.  Great 
Britain  regarding  the  complaints  of  the  colo 
nies  unfounded,  refused  to  yield  to  their  de 
mands,  and  proceeded  to  reduce  them  to  obedi 
ence  5  not  by  ihe  enforcement  of  the  laws,  but 
by  military  force,  armies  and  navies,  according 
to  the  rules  and  laws  of  war.  Captives  taken 
in  battle  with  arms  in  their  hands,  fighting 
against  Great  Britain,  were  not  executed  as 
traitors,  but  held  as  prisoners  of  war,  and  ex 


changed  according  to  the  usages  of  civilized 
nations.  The  laws  of  nations,  the  principles 
of  humanity,  of  civilization,  and  Christianity, 
demanded  that  the  Government  de  facto  should 
be  acknowledged  and  treated  as  such.  While 
the  right  to  prosecute  war  for  the  purpose  of 
reducing  the  revolted  provinces  to  obedience 
still  remained,  yet  it  was  a  military  remedy, 
and  could  only  be  exercised  according  to  the 
established  principles  of  war. 

It  is  said  that,  after  one  of  the  earliest  engage- 
'ments,  the  British  general  threatened  to  execute 
as  traitors  all  the  prisoners  he  had  taken  in  bat 
tle  ;  and  that  General  Washington  replied  that 
he.  too,  had  taken  some  prisoners,  and  would 
shoot  two  for  one  until  the  British  general 
should  respect  the  laws  of  war,  and  treat  his 
prisoners  accordingly.  May  Divine  Providence, 
in  his  infinite  wisdonj  and  mercy,  save  our 
country  from  the  humiliation  and  calamities 
which  now  seem  almost  inevitable  !  South  Car 
olina  has  already  declared  her  independence  of 
the  United  States  ;  has  expelled  the  Federal  au 
thorities  from  her  limits,  and  established  a  Gov 
ernment  de  facto,  with  a  military  force  to  sus 
tain  it.  The  revolution  is  complete,  there  being 
no  man  within  her  limits  who  denies  the  author 
ity  of  her  government  or  acknowledges  alle 
giance  to  that  of  the  United  States.  There  is 
every  reason  to  believe  that  seven  other  States 
will  soon  follow  her  example  ;  and  much  ground 
to  apprehend  that  the  other  slaveholdiug  States 
will  follow  them. 

How  are  we  going  to  prevent  an  alliance  be 
tween  these  seceding  States  by  which  they  may 
establish  a  Federal  Government,  at  least  de 
facto,  for  themselves?  If  they  shall  do  so,  and 
expel  the  authorities  of  the  United  States  from 
their  limits,  as  South  Carolina  has  done,  and 
others  are  about  to  do,  so  that  there  shall  be  no 
human  being  within  their  boundaries  who  ac 
knowledges  allegiance  to  the  United  States,  how 
are  we  going  to  enforce  the  laws?  Armies  and 
navies  can  make  war,  but  cannot  enforce  laws 
in  this  country.  The  laws  can  be  enforced 
only  by  the  civil  authorities,  assisted  by  the 
military  as  a  posse  comitatus,  when  resisted  in  ex 
ecuting  judicial  process.  Who  is  to  issue  the 
judicial  process  in  a  State  where  there  is  no  judge 
no  court,  no  judicial  functionary  ?  Who  is  to 
perform  the  duties  of  marshal  in  executing  the 
process  where  no  man  will  or  dare  accept  office  ? 
Who  are  to  serve  on  juries  while  every  citizen 
s  particeps  criminis  with  Ihe  accused  ?  How  are 
you  going  to  comply  with  the  Constitution  in 
respect  to  a  jury  trial,  where  there  are  no  men 
qualified  to  serve  on  the  jury  ?  I  agree  that  the 
laws  should  be  enforced.  I  hold  that  our  Gov 
ernment  is  clothed  with  the  power  and  duty  of 
using  all  the  means  necessary  to  the  enforce 
ment  of  the  laws,  according  to  the  Constitution  and 
laws.  The  President  is  sworn  to  the  faithful 
performance  of  this  duty.  I  do  not'propose  to 
inquire,  at  this  time,  how  far,  and  with  what 
fidelity,  the  President  nas  performed  that  duty. 
His  conduct  and  duty  in  this  regard,  including 
acts  of  commission  and  omission,  while  the  re- 


10 


bellion  was  in  its  incipient  stages,  and  when!  knowledge  the  right  of  the  States  bordering  on 
confined  to  a  few  individuals,  'present  a  very5,  the  seas  to  withdraw  from  the  Union  at  pleasure 
different  question  from  that  which  we  are  now  and  form  alliances  among  themselves  and  with 


discussing — after  the  revolution  has  become 
complete,  and  the  Federal  authorities  have  been 
expelled,  and  the  Government  de  facto  put  into 
practical  operation,  and  in  the  unrestrained 
and  unresisted  exercise  of  all  the  powers  and 
functions  of  Government,  local  and  national. 

But  we  are  told  that  secession  is  wrong,  and 
that  South  Carolina  had  no  right  to  secede.  I 
agree  that  it  is  wrong,  unlawful,  unconstitu 
tional,  criminal.  In  my  opinion.  South  Caro 
lina  had  no  right  to  secede  ;  but  she  has  done  it. 
She  has  declared  her  independence  of  us,  ef 
faced  the  last  vestige  of  our  civil  authority,  es 
tablished  a  foreign^Government,  and  is  now  en 
gaged  in  the  preliminary  steps  to  open  diplo 
matic  intercourse  with  the  great  Powers 
of  the  world.  What  .next?  If  her  acts 
were  illegal,  unconstitutional,  and  wrong, 
have  we  no  remedy  ?  Unquestionably 
we  have  the  right  to  use  all  the  power  and 
force  necessary  to  regain  possession  of  that 
portion  of  the  United  States,  in  order  that  we 


other  countries,  by  which  we  shall  be  excluded 
from  all  access  to  the  ocean,  from  all  intercourse 
and  commerce  with  foreign  nations.  We  can 
never  consent  to  be  shut  up  within  the  circle  of 
a  Chinese  wall,  erected  and  controlled  by  others 
without  our  permission  ;  or  to  any  other  sys 
tem  of  isolation  by  which  we  shall  be  deprived 
of  any  communication  with  the  rest  of  the  civ- 
ized  world.  Those  States  which  are  situated  in 
the  interior  of  the  continent  can  never  assent 
to  any  such  doctrine.  Our  rights,  our  interests, 
our  safety,  our  existence  as  a  free  people,  for 
bid  it!  The  northwestern  States  were  ceded  to 
the  United  States  before  the  Constitution  was 
made,  on  condition  of  perpetual  union  with  the 
other  States.  The  Territories  wore  organized, 
settlers  invited,  lands  purchased,  and  homes 
made,  on  the  pledge  of  your  plighted  faith  of 
perpetual  union. 

When  there  were  but  two  hundred  thousand 
inhabitants  scattered  over  that  vast  region,  the 
navigation  of  the  Mississippi  was  deemed  by 


may  again  enforce  our   Constitution   and  laws  I  Mr.  Jefferson  so  important  and  essential  to  their 
upon  the  inhabitants.     We  can  enforce  our  laws  |  interests  and  prosperity,  that  he  did  not  hesitate 
in  those  States,   Territories,   and   places  only 
which  are  within  our  possession.    It  often  hap 


pens  that  the  territorial  rights  of  a  country  ex 
tend  beyond  the  limits  of  their  actual  posses 
sions.  That  is  our  case  at  present  in  respect  to 
South  Carolina.  Our  right  of  jurisdiction  over 
that  State  for  Federal  purposes,  according  to 
the  Constitution,  has  not  been  destroyed  or  im- 


to  declare  that  if  Spain  or  France  insisted  upon 
retaining  possession  of  the  mouth  of  that  river, 


it  would  become  the  duty  of  the  United  States 
to  take  it  by  arms,  if  they  failed  to  acquire  it  by 
treaty.  If  the  possession  of  that  river,  with 
jurisdiction  over  its  mouth  and  channel,  was 
indispensable  to  the  people  of  the  Northwest 
when  we  had  two  hundred  thousand  inhabitants, 


paired  by  the  ordinance  of  secession,  or  any  act  is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  wo  will  volun 
tarily  surrender  it  now  when  we  have  ten  mil 
lion  people  ?  Louisiana  was  not  purchased  for 
the  exclusive  benefit  of  the  few  Spanish  and 
French  residents  in  the  territory,  nor  for  those 
who  might  become  residents.  These  considera 
tions  .did  not  enter  into  the 'negotiations,  and 
formed  no  inducement  to  the  acquisition.  Lou 
isiana  was  purchased  with  the  national  treasure, 
for  the  common  benefit  of  the  whole  Union  in 
general,  and  for  the  safety,  convenience,  and 
prosperity  of  the  Northwest  in  particular.  We 


of  the  convention,  or  of  the  de  facto  govern 
ment.  The  right  remains,  but  the  possession  is 
lost,  for  the  time  being.  "  How  shall  we  regain 
the  possession  ?"  is  the  pertinent  inquiry.  It 
may  be  done  by  arms,  or  by  a  peaceable  adjust 
ment  of  the  matters  in  controversy. 

Are  we  prepared  for  war  ?  I  do  not  mean  that 
kind  of  preparation  which  consists  of  armies 
and  navies,  and  supplies,  and  munitions  of  war  ; 
but  are  we  prepared  IN  OUR  HEARTS  for  war  with 
our  own  brethren  and  kindred?  I  confessl  am  not. 
While  I  affirm  that  the  Constitution  is,  and  was 


paid  $15,000,000  for  the  territory.    We  have 


intended  to  be.  a  bond  of  perpetual  Union  ;  j  expended  much  more  than  that  sum  in  the  ex- 
while  I  can  do  no  act  and  utter  no  word  that  :  tinguishmerit  of  Indian  titles,  the  removal  of 
will  acknowledge  or  countenance  the  right  of  j  Indians,  the  survey  of  lands,  the  erection  of 
secession  ;  while  I  affirm  the  right  and  duty  of  j  custom-houses,  light-houses,  forts,  and  arsenals, 
the  Federal  Government  to  use  all  legitimate  |  We  admitted  the  inhabitants  into  thg  Union  on 


means  to  enforce  the  laws,  put  down  rebellion, 
and  suppress  insurrection,  I  will  not  meditate 
war,  nor  tolerate  the  idea,  until  every  effort  at 
peaceable  adjustment  shall  have  been  exhausted. 
and  the  last  ray  of  hope  shall  have  deserted  the 
pat/riot's  heart.  Then,  and  not  till  then,  will  I 
consider  and  determine  what  course  my  duty  to 
my  country  may  require  me  to  pursue  in  such 
an  emergency.  In  my  opinion,  war  is  disun 
ion,  certain,  inevitable,  irrevocable.  I  am  for 
peace  to  save  the  Union. 

I  have  said  that  I  cannot  recognize  nor  coun 
tenance  the  right  of  secession.  Illinois,  situated 
ia  the  interior  of  the  continent,  can  never  ac- 


an  equal  footing  with  ourselves.  Now  we  are 
called  upon  to  acknowledge  the  moral  and  con 
stitutional  right  of  those  people  to  dissolve  the 
Union  without  the  consent  of  the  other  States  ; 
to  seize  the  forts,  arsenals,  and  other  public 
property,  and  appropriate  thorn  to  their  own 
use  ;  to  take  possession  of  the  Mississippi  river 
and  exercise  jurisdiction  over  the  same,  and  to 
reannex  herself  to  France,  or  remain  an  inde 
pendent  nation,  or  to  form  alliances  with  such 
other  foreign  Powers  as  she,  in  the  plenitude 
of  her  sovereign  will  and  pleasure,  may  see  fit. 
If  this  thing  is  to  be  done— peaceably,  if  you 
can  ;  forcibly,  if  you  must — all  I  propose  to 


11 


say  at  this  time  is,  that  you  cannot  expect  us  of 
the  Northwest  to  yield  our  assent  to  it,  nor  to 
acknowledge  your  right  to  do  it,  or  the  propri 
ety  and  justness  of  the  act. 

The  respectful  attention  with  which  my  friend 
from  Florida  [MR.  YULEE]  is  listening  to  me, 
reminds  me  that  his  State  furnishes  an  apt  il 
lustration  of  this  modern  doctrine  of  secession. 
We  paid  five  million  for  the  Territory.  We  ex 
pended  marvelous  sums  in  subduing  the  Indian's, 
extinguishing  Indian  titles,  removal  of  Indians 
•beyond  her  borders,  surveying  the  lands  build 
ing  light-houses,  navy-yards,  forts  and  arsenals, 
with  untold  millions  for  the  never  ending  Flor 
ida  claim?.  I  assure  my  friend  that  I  do  not 
refer  to  these  things  in  an  offensive  sense,  for  he 
knows  how  much  respect  I  havt  for  him,  and 
has  not  forgotten  my  efforts  in  the  House  many 
years  ago,  to  secure  the  admission  of  his  State 
into  the  Union,  in  order  that  he  might  repre 
sent  her,  as  he  has  since  done  with  so  much 
ability  and  fidelity,  in  this  body.  But  I  will  say 
that  it  never  occurred  to  me  at  that  time  that 
the  State  whose  admission  into  the  Union  I  was 
advocating  would  be  one  of  the  first  to  join  in 
a  scheme  to  break  up  the  Union.  I  submit  it 
to  him  whether  it  is  not  an  extraordinary  spec 
tacle  to  see  that  State,  which  has  cost  us  so 
much  blood  and  treasure,  turn  her  back  on  the 
Union  which  has  fostered  and  protected  her 
when  she  was  too  feeble  to  protect  herself,  and 
seize  the  light-houses,  navy-yards,  forts  and 
arsenals,  which,  although  within  her  boundaries, 
were  erected  with  national  funds,  for  the  benefit 
and  defense  of  the  whole  Union. 

I  do  not  know  that  I  can  find  a  more  striking 
illustration  of  this  doctrine  of  secession  than 
was  suggested  to  my  mind  when  reading  the 
President's  last  annual  message.  My  attention 
was  first  arrested  by  the  remarkable  passage, 
that  the  Federal  Government  had  no  power  to 
coerce  a  State  back  in^b  the  Union  if  she  did  se 
cede  ;  and  my  admiration  was  unbounded  when 
I  found,  a  few  lines  afterwards,  a  recommenda 
tion  to  appropriate  momy  to  purchase  the  is 
land  of  Cuba.  It  occurred  to  me  instantly, 
what  a  brilliant  achievement  it  would  be  to  pay 
Spain  $300,900,000  for  Cuba,  and  immediately 
admit  the  island  into  the  Union  as  a  State,  and 
let  her  secede  and  reannex  herself  to  Spain  the 
next  day,  when  the  Spanish  Queen  would  be 
ready  to  sell  the  island  again  for  half  price,  or 
double  price,  according  to  the  gullibility  of  the 
purchaser !  [Laughter.] 

During  my  service  in  Congress  it  was  one  of 
my  pleasant  duties  to  take  an  active  part  in  the 
annexation  of  Texas  ;  and  at  a  subsequent  ses 
sion  to  write  and  introduce  the  bill  which  made 
Texas  one  of  the  states  of  the  Union.  Out  of 
that  annexation  grew  the  war  with  Mexico,  in 
which  we-  expended  $100,000.000  ;  and  were 
left  to  mourn  the  loss  of  about  ten  thousand  as 
gallant  men  as  ever  died  upon,  a  battle-field  tor 
the  honor  and  glory  of  their  country!  We  have 
since  spent  millions  of  money  to  protect  Texas 
against  her  own  Indians,  to  establish  forts  and 
fortifications  to  protect  her  frontier  settlements, 


and  to  defend  her  against  the  assaults  of  all  en 
emies  until  she  became  strong  enough  to  pro 
tect  herself.  We  are  now  called  upon  to  ac 
knowledge  that  Texas  has  a  moral,  just,  and 
constitutional  right  to  rescind  the  act"of  admis 
sion  into  the  Union  ;  repudiate  her  ratification 
of  the  resolutions  of  annexation  ;  seize  the 
forts  and  public  buildings  which  were  construc 
ted  with  our  money ;  appropriate  the  same  to 
her  own  use,  and  leave  us  to  pay  $100,000,000 
and  mourn  the  death  of  the  brave  men  who 
sacrificed  their  lives  in  defending  the  integrity 
of  her  soil.  In  the  name  of  Hardin,  and  Bissell, 
and  Harris,  and  of  the  seven  thousand  gallant 
spirits  from  Illinois,  who  fought  bravely  upon 
every  battle-field  of  Mexico,  I  protest  against 
the  right  of  Texas  to  separate  herself  from  this 
Union  without  our  consent. 

Mr.  HEMPHILL.  Mr.  President,  if  the  Sen 
ator  from  Illinois  will  allow  me,  I  will  inquire 
whether  there  were  no  other  causes  assigned  by 
the  United  States  for  the  war  with  Mexico  than 
simply  the  defense  of  Texas  t 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I  will  answer  the  question. 
We  undoubtedly  did  assign  other  acts  as  being 
causes  for  war.  which  had  existed  for  years,  if 
we  had  chosen  to  treat  them  so  ;  but  we  d'd  not 
go  to  war  for  any  other  cause  than  the  annexa 
tion  of  Texas,  as  is  shown  in  the  act  of  Con 
gress  recognizing  the  existence  of  war  with 
Mexico,  in  which  it  is  declared  that  ;'  war  ex 
ists  by  the  act  of  the  Republic  of  Mexico." 
The  sole  cause  of  grievance  which  Mexico  had 
against  us,  and  for  which  she  commenced  the 
war,  was  our  annexation  of  Texas.  Hence, 
none  can  deny  that  the  Mexican  war  was  solely 
and  exclusively  the  result  of  the  annexation  of 
Texas. 

Mr.  HEMPHILL.  I  will  inquire  further, 
whether  the  United  States  paid  anything  to 
Texas  for  the  annexation  of  her  three  hundred 
and  seventy  thousand  square  miles  of  territory, 
and  whether  the  United  States  has  not  got  $500- 
000,  000  by  the  acquisition  of  California  through 
that  war  with  Mexico. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Sir,  we  did  not  pay  any 
thing  for  bringing  Texas  into  the  Union;  for 
we  did  not  get  any  of  her  lands,  except  that 
we  purchased  from  her  some  poor  lands  after 
wards,  which  she  did  not  own,  and  paid  her. 
$10  000,000  for  them.  [Laughter.]  But  .we 
did  spend  blood  and  treasure  in  the  acquisition 
and  subsequent  defence  of  Texas. 

Now,  sir,  I  will  answer  his  question  in  respect 
to  California.  The  treaty  of  peace  brought 
California  and  New  Mexico  into  the  Union. 
Our  people  moved  there,  took  possession  of  the 
lands,  settled  up  the  country,  and  erected  a 
State  of  which  the  United  States  have  a  right 
to  be  proud.  We  have  expended  millions  upon 
millions  fop  fortifications  in  California,  and  for 
navy-yards,  and  mints,  and  public  buildings,  and 
land  surveys,  and  feeding  the  Indians,  and  pro 
tecting  her  people.  I  believe  the  public  land  sales 
do  not  amount  to  more  than  one-tenth  of  the  cost 
of  the  surveys,  according  to  the  returns  that 
have  been  made.  It  is  true  that  the  people  of 


12 


California  have  dug  a  largo  amount  of  gold 
(principally  out  of  the  lands  belonging  to  the 
United  States)  and  sold  it  to  us;  but  I  am  not 
aware  that  we  are  under  any  more  obligations 
to  them  for  selling  it  to  us.  than  they  are  to  us 
for  buying  it  of  them.  The  people  of  Texas, 
during  the  same  time,  have  probably  made  cot 
ton  and  agricultural  productions  to  a  much 
larger  value,  and  sold  some  of  it  to  New  Eng 
land,  arid  some  to  Old  England.  I  suppose  the 
benefits  of  the  b \rgain  were  reciprocal,  and 
the  one  was  under  just  as  much  obligation  as 
the  other  for  the  mutual  benefits  of  the  sale  and 
purchase. 

The~question  remains,  whether,  after  paying 
$15,000,000  for  California— as  the  Senator  from 
Texas  has  called  my  attention  to  that  State — and 
mere  in 


/ 

admitting  new  States,  but  no  provision  for  the 
withdrawal  of  any  of  the  other  States.  I  will  not 
argue  the  question  of  the  right  of  secession 
any  further  than  to  enter  my  protest  against 
the  whole  doctrine.  I  deny  that  there  is  any 
foundation  for  it  in  the  Constituiion,  in  the 
nature  of  the  compact,  in  the  principles  of  the 
Government  or  in  justice,  or  in  good  faith. 

Nor  do  I  sympathize  at  all  in  the  apprehen 
sions  and  misgivings  I  hear  expressed  about 
coercion.  We  are  told  that  inasmuch  .as  our 
Government  is  founded  upon  the  will  of  the  peo 
ple,  or  the  consent  of  the  governed,  therefore 
coercion  is  incompatible  with  republicanism.— 
Sir,  tne  word  government  means  coercion. — 
There  can  be  no  Government  without  coercion. 
Coercion  is  the  vital  principal  upon  which  all 
rest.  'Withdraw  the  right 


ti. 

ill 

perhaps  as  much  more  in  protecting  and  de-  j  Governments  rest.  Withdraw  the  right  of 
fending  her,  she  has  any  moral,  constitutional  |  coercion,  and  you  dissolve  your  Government, 
right  to  annul  the  compact  between  her  and  the  j  If  every  man  would  berform  his  duty  and  res- 
Union,  and  form  alliances  with  foreign  PowersH  pect  the  rights  of  his  neighbors  voluntarily, 
and  leave  us  to  pay  the  cost  and  expenses?  I  there  would  be  no  necessity  for  any  Government 
cannot  recognize  any  such  doctrine.  In  my  on  earth.  The  necessity  of  government  is 


opinion,  the  Constitution  was  intended  to  be  a 
bond  of  perpetual  Union.  It  begins  with  the 
declaration  in  the  preamble,  that  it  is  made  in 
order "  to  form  a  more  perfect  Union,"  and 
every  section  and  paragraph  in  the  instrument 
implies  perpetuity.  It  was  intended  to  last  for 
ever,  and  was  so  understood  when  ratified  by 
the  people  of  the  several  States.  New  York 
and  Virginia  have  been  referred  to  as  having 
ratified  with  the  reserved  right  to  withdraw  or 
Recede  at  pleasure.  This  is  a  mistake.  The  cor 
respondence  between  General  Hamilton  and 
Mr.  Madison,  at  the  time,  is  conclusive  on  this 
point.  After  Virginia  had  ratified  the  Constitu 
tion,  General  Hamilton,  who  was  a  member  of 
the  New  York  convention,  wrote  to  Mr.  Madison 
that  New  York  would  probably  ratify  the  Con 
stitution  for  a  term  of  years,  and  reserve  the 


found  to  consist  in  the  fact  that  some  men  will 
not  do  right  unless  coerced  to  do  "o.  The  ob 
ject  of  all  government  is  to  coerce  and  compel 
every  man  to  do  his  duty,  who  would  not  other 
wise  perform  it.  Hence  I  do  not  subscribe  at 
all  to  this  doctrine  that  coercion  is  not  to  be 
used  in  a  free  Government.  It  must  be  used  in 
all  Governments,  no  matter  what  their  form  or 
what  their  principles. 

But  coercion  must  always  be  used  in  the 
mode  prescribed  Jn  the  Constitution  and  laws. 
I  hold  that  the  Federal  Government  is.  and 
ought  to  be,  clothed  wtth  the  power  and  duty 
to  use  all  the  means  necessary  to  coerce  obedi 
ence  to  all  laws  made  in  pursuance  <3f  the  Con 
stitution.  But  the  proposition  to  subvert  the 
de  facto  government  of  South  Carolina,  and  to 
reduce  the  people  of  that  State  iuto  subjection 


right  to  withdraw   after   that  time,  if  certain  I  to  our  Federal  authority,  no  longer  involves  the 
amendments  were  not  sooner  adopted;  to  which  ' 
Mr.  Madison   replied  that   such   a  ratification 
would"  not   make  Now  York  a  member  of  the 


Union,  that  the  ratification  must  be  uncondition 
al,  in  toto  and  forever,  or  not  at  all  ;  that  the  same 
question  was  considered  at  Richmond,  and 
abandoned  when  Virginia  ratified  the  Constitu 
tion.  Hence,  the  declaration  of  Virginia  and 
New  York,  that  they  had  not  surrendered  the 
right  to  resume  the  delegated  powers,  must  be 
understood  as  referring  to  the  right  of  revolu 
tion,  which  nobody  acknowledges  more  freely 
than  I  do.  and  not  to  the  rght  of  secession.  » 
The  Constitution  being  made  as  a  bond  of 
perpetual  Union,  its  framers  proceeded  to  pro 
vide  against  the  necessities  of  revolution,  by 
prescribing  the  mode  in  which  it  mlgbt  be 


amended;   so  that  if  in  the   course  of  time,  the  I  facto. 


question  of  enforcing  the  laws  in  a  country 
within  our  posession;  but  it  does  involve  the 
question  whether  we  will  -make  war  on  a  State 
which  has  withdrawn  her  allegiance  and  ex- 
expelled  our  authorities,  with  a  view  of  sub 
jecting  her  to  our  possession  for  the  purpose  of 
enforcing  our  laws  within  her  limits. 

We  are  bound,  by  the  usages  of  nations,  by 
the  laws  of  civilization,  by  the  uniform  prac 
tice  of  our  own  Government,  to  acknowledge 
the  existence  of  a  Government  de  facto,  so  long 
as  it  maintains  its  undivided  authority.  When 
Louis  Philippe  fled  from  the  throne  of  France, 
and  Lamart'.ne  suddenly  one  morning  found 
himself  the  head  of  a  provisional  Government, 
I  believe  it  was  but  three  days  until  the  Ameri 
can  minister  recognized  the  Government  de 


condition  of  the  country  should  so  change  as  to 
require  a  different  fundamental  law.  amendments 
might  be  made  peaceably. in  the  manner  prcscrib- 
edinthe  instrument;  and  thusavoid  the  necessity 
of  ever  resorting  to  revolution.  Having  provided 
for  a  perpetual  Union,  and  for  amendments  to 


Texas  was  a  Government  de  facto,  not  recog 
nized  by  Mexico,  when  we  annexed  her;  and 
Mexico  was  a  Government  de  facto,  not  recog 
nized  by  Spain,  when  Texas  revolted.  The  laws 
of  nations  recognize  Governments  de  facto  where 
they  exercise  and  maintain  undivided  sway, 


the  Constitution,  they  next  inserted  a  clause  for    leaving  the  question  of  their  authority  de  jure 


13 


to  be  determined  by  the  poople  interested  in  tbe 
Government.  Now,  as  a  man  who  loves  the 
Union,  and  desires  to  see  it  maintained  forever, 
and  to  see  the  laws  enforced,  and  rebellion  put 
down,  and  insurrection  .suppressed,  and  order 
maintained,  I  desire  to  know  of  my  Union-lov 
ing  friends  on  the  other  side  of  the  Chamber 
how  they  intend  to  enforce  the  laws  in  the  se 
ceding  States,  except  by  making  war,  conquer 
ing  them  first,  and  administering  the  laws  in 
them  afterwards. 

In  my  opinion,  we  have  reached  a  point  where 
disunion  is  inevitable,  unless  some  compromise, 
founded  upon  mutual  concession,  can  be  made. 
I  prefer  compromise  to  war.  I  prefer  concession 
to  a  dissolution  of  the  Union.  When  I  avow 
myself  in  favor  of  compromise,  I  do  not  mean 
that  one  side  should  give  up  all  that  it  has 
claimed,  nor  that  the  other  side  should  give  up 
everything  for  whic'h  it  has  contended.  Nor  do 
I  ask  any  man  to  come  to  my  standard;  but  I 
pimply  say  that  I  will  meet  every  one  half  way 
who  "is  willing  to  preserve  the  peace  of  the 
country,  and  save  the  Union  from  disruption 
upon  principles  of  compromise  and  concession. 

In  my  judgment,  no  system  of  compromise 
can  be  effectual  and  permanent  which  does  not 
banish  the  slavery  question  from  the  Halls  of 
Congress  and  the  arena  of  Federal  politics,  by 
invpealable  constitutional  provision.  We  have 
tried  compromises  by  law.  compromises  by  act 
of  Congress  ;  and  now  we  are  engaged  in  the 
small  business  of  crimination  and  recrimination, 
as  to  who  is  responsible  for  not  having  lived  up 
to  them  in  good  faith,  and  for  having  broken 
faith.  I  want  whatever  compromise  is  agreed 
to.  placed  beyond  the  reach  of  party  politics 
and  partisan  policy,  by  being  made  irrevocable 
in  the  Constitution  itself,  so  that  every  man  that 
holds  office  will  bu  bound  by  his  oath  to  sup 
port  it. 

There  are  several*  modes  in  which  this  irrita 
ting  question  may  be  withdrawn  from  Congress, 
peace  restored,  the  rights  of  the  States  main 
tained,  and  the  Union  rendered  secure.  One  of 
them — one  to  which  I  can  cordially  assent — has 
been  presented  by  the  venerable  Senator  from 
Kentucky,  [Mr.  CRTTTENDEN.]  The  journal  of 
the  committee  of  thirteen  shows  that  I  have 
voted  for  it  in  committee.  I  am  prepared  to 
vote  for  it  again.  I  shall  not  occupy  time  now 
in  discussing  the  question  whether  my  vote  to 
make  a  partition  between  the  two  sections,  in 
stead  of  referring  the  question  to  the  people, 
will  be  consistent  with  my  previous  record  or 
not.  The  country  has  no  great  interest  in  my 
consistency.  The  preservation  of  this  Union, 
the  mtegrity  of  this  Republic,  is  of  more  im 
portance  than  party  platforms  or  individual 
records.  Hence  I  have  no  hesitation' in  saying 
to  Senators  on  all  sides  of  this  Chamber,  that  I 
am  prepared  to  act  on  this  question  with  refer 
ence  to  the  present  exigencies  of  the  case,  as  if 
I  had  never  given  a  vote,  or  uttered  a  word,  or 
had  an  opinion  upon  the  subject. 

Woy  cannot  you  Republicans  accede  to  the 
reestablishment  and  extension  of  the  Missouri 


compromise  line?  You  have  sung  peans  enough 
in  its  praise,  and  uttered  imprecations  and 
curses  enough  on  my  head  for  its  repeal,  one 
would  think,  to  justify  you  now  in  claiming  a 
triumph  by  its  reestablishment.  If  you  are  wil 
ling  to  give  up  your  party  feelings — to  gink 
the  partisan  in  th.-  patriot — and  help  me.  to  re 
establish  and  extend  that  line,  as  a  perpetual 
bond  of  peace  between  the  North  and  the  South, 
I  will  promise  you  never  to  remind  you  in  tbe 
future  of  your  denunciations  of  the  Missouri 
compromise  so  long  as  I  was  supporting  it,  and 
of  your  praises  of  the  same  nvasure  when  we 
removed  it  from  the  statute-book,  after  you  had 
caused  it  to  be  abandon*  d.  l.y  rendering  it  im 
possible  for  us  to  carry  it  out.  I  seek  no  parti 
san  advantage;  I  desire  no  p'Tsonal  triumph.  I 
am  willing  to  let  by-gones  be  by-gones  with 
every  man  \vho,  in  this  exigency,  will  show  by 
his  vote  that  he  loves  his  country  more  than  his 
party. 

I  presented  to  the  committee  of  thirteen,  and 
also  introduced  into  the  Seriate,  another  plan 
by  which  the  slavery  question  may  be  taken  out 
of  Congress  and  the  peace  of  the  country  main 
tained.  It  is,  that  Congress  shall  make  no  law 
on  the  subject  of  slavery  in  th"  Territories,  and 
that  the  existing  status  of  each  Territory  on  that 
subject,  as  it  now  stands  by  law,  shall  remain 
unchanged  until  it  has  fifty  thousand  inhabit 
ants,  when  it  shall  have  the  right  of  self-govern 
ment  as  to  its  domestic  policy  ;  but  with  only  a 
Delegate  in  each  House  of  Congress  until  it  has 
the  population  required  by  the  Federal  ratio 
for  a  Representative  in  Congress,  when  it  shall 
be  admitted  into  "the  Union  on  an  equal  footing 
with  the  original  Stnt«  s.  I  put  the  number  of 
inhabitants  at  fifty  thousand  before  the  people 
of  the  Territory  shall  change  the  status  in  re 
spect  to  slavery  as  a  fair  compromise  between 
the  conflicting  opinions  upon  this  subject.  The 
two  extremes,  North  and  South,  unite  in  con 
demning  the  doctrine  of  popular  sovereignty 
in  the  Territories  upon  the  ground  that  the  first 
few  settlers  ought  not  to  be  permitted  to  decide 
so  important  a  question  for  those  who  are  to 
come  after  them.  I  have  never  considered  that 
objections  well  taken,  for  the  reason  that  no 
Territory  should  be  organized  with  the  right  to 
elect  a  Legislature  and  make  its  own  laws  upon 
all  rightful  subj  cts  of  legislation,  until  it  con 
tained  a  sufficient  population  to  constitute  a 
political  community  ;  and  whenever  Congress 
should  decide  that  there  was  a  sufficient  popu 
lation,  capable  of  self-government,  by  organiz 
ing  the  Territory,  to  govern  themselves  upon 
all  other  subjects,  I  could  never  perceive  any 
good  reason  why  the  same  political  community 
should  not  be  permitted  to  decide  the  slavery 
question  for  themselves. 

But,  since  we  are  now  tryine:  to  compromise 
our  difficulties  upon  the  basis  of  mutual  con 
cessions,  I  propose  to  meet  both  extremes  half 
way,  by  fixing  the  number  at  fifty  thousand. 
This  number,  certainly,  ought  to  be  satisfactory 
to  those  States  which  have  been  admitted  into 
the  Union  with  less  than  fifty  thousand  inhabit- 


14 


Oregon.  Florida-,  Arkansas,  Mississippi, 
Alabama,  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois,  were  each 
admitted  into  the  Union,  I  believe,  with  less 
than  that  number  of  inhabitants*  Surely  the 
Senators  and  Representatives  from  those  States 
do  not  doubt  that  fifty  thousand  people  were 
enough  to  constitute  a  political  community  ca 
pable  of  deciding  the  slavery  question  for  them 
selves.  I  now  invite  attention  to  the  next  pro 
position.  , 

In  order  to  allay  all  apprehension,  North  or 
-South,  that  territory  would  be  acquired  in  the 
future  for  sectional  of  partisan  purposes,  by  ad 
ding  a  large  number  of  free  States  on  the  North. 
t>r  slave  States  on  the  South,  with  the  view  of 
giving  the  one  section  or  the  other  a  dangerous 
political  ascendency,  I  have  inserted  the  provis 
ion  that  "  No  more  territory  shall  be  acquired 
by  the  United  States,  except  by  treaty  or  the 
concurrent  vote  of  two-thirds  in  each  House  of 
Congress."  If  this  provision  should  be  incor 
porated  into  the  Constitution,  it  would  be  im 
possible  for  either  section  to  annex  any  terri 
tory  without  the  concurrence  of  a  large  portion 
t>f  the  other  section  j  and  hence  there  need  be 
no  apprehension  that  any  territory  would  here' 
after  be  acquired  for  any  other  than  such  na 
tional  considerations  as  would  commend  the 
subject  to  the  approbation  of  both  sections. 

I  have  also  inserted  a  provision  confining  the 
Hght  of  suffrage  and  of  holding  office  to  white 
men.  excluding  the  African  race.  I  have  also 
inserted  a  provision  for  the  colonization  of  free 
negroes  from  such  States  as  may  desire  to  have 
them  removed,  to  districts  of -country  to  be  ac 
quired  in  Africa  and  South  America.  In  addi 
tion  to  these,  I  have  adopted  the  various  pro 
visions  contained  in  the  proposition  of  the 
•Senator  from  Kentucky,  in  reference  to  fugitive 
slaves,  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  forts, 
arsenals,  and  dock-yards  in  the  slave  States  and 
in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  the  other  pro- 
Visions  for  the  safety  of  the  South*  I  believe 
this  to  be  a  fair  basis  of  amicable  adjustment. 
If  you  of  the  Republican  side  are  not  willing 
to  accept  this,  nor  the  proposition  of  the  Sena 
tor  from  Kentucky,  [Mr.  GRITTENDEN,]  pray  tell 
us  what  you  are  willing  to  do  ?  I  address  the 
inquiry  to  the  Republicans  alone,  for  the  rea' 
Bon  that  in  the  committee  of  thirteen,  a  few 
tiays  ago*  every  member  from  the  South,  includ 
ing  those  from  the  cotton  States,  [Messrs, 
'TOOMBS  and  DAVIS,]  expressed  their  readiness 
to  accept  the  proposition  of  my  venerable  friend 
from  Kentucky  [Mr.  GIUTTENDEN]  as  a  final  set- 
tjemeut  of  the  controversy,  if  tendered  and  sus 
tained  by  the  Republican  members.  Hence,  the 
Bole  responsibility  of  our  disagreement,  and  the 
only  difficulty  in  the  way  of  an  amicable  ad 
justment,  is  with  the  Republican  party, 

At  first,  I  thought  your  reason  for  declining 
to  adjust  this  question  amicably,  was  that  the 
Constitution,  as  it  stands,  was  good  enough, 
and  that  you  would  make  no  amendment  to  it, 
That  position  has  already  been  waived.  The 

treat  leader  of    the   Republican   party,    [Mr. 
EWARD,]  by  the  unanimous  concurrence  of  his 


friends,  brought  into  t^ie  CotntniUee  of  thirteen 
a  proposition  to  amend  the  Constitution.  Inas 
much,  therefore,  as  you  are  willing  to  amend 
the  instrument,  and  to  entertain  propositions  of 
adjustment)  why  not  go  further^  and  relieve  the 
apprehensions  of  the  southern  people  on  all 
points  where  you  do  not  intend  to  operate  ag 
gressively  ?  You  Offer  to  amend  the  Constitu 
tion,  by  declaring  that  no  future  amendments 
shall  be  made  which  shall  empower  Congress  to 
interfere  with  slavery  in  the  States* 

Now.  if  you  do  not  intend  to  do  any  other 
act  prejudicial  to  their  constitutional  rights  and 
safety,  why  not  relieve  their  apprehensions  by 
inserting,  in  your  own  proposed  amendment  to 
the  Constitution,  such  further  provisions  as  will; 
in  like  manner,  render  it  impossible  for  you  to 
do  that  which  they  apprehend  you  intend  to  do, 
and  which  you  have  no  purpose  of  doing,  if  it 
be  true  that  you  have  no  such  purpose  ?  For 
the  purpose  of  removing  the  apprehensions  of 
the  southern  people,  and  for  no  other  purpose, 
you  propose  to  amend  the  Constitution^  so  as  to 
render  it  impossible,  in  all  future  time,  for 
Congress  to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the  States 
where  it  may  exist  under  the  laws  thereof,  Why 
not  insert  a  similar  amendment  in  respect  to 
slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  in  the 
navy-yards,  forts,  arsenals,  and  other  places 
within  the  limits  of  the  slaveholding  States, 
over  which  Congress  has  exclusive  jurisdiction? 
Why  not  insert  a  similar  provision  in  respect  to 
the  slave  trade  between  the  slaveholding  States? 
The  southern  people  have  more  serious  appre 
hensions  on  these  points  than  they  have  of 
your  direct  interference  with  slavery  in  the 
States,  • 

If  their  apprehensions  on  these  several  points 
are  groundless,  is  it  not  a  duty  you  owe  to  God 
and  your  country  to  relieve  theft  anxiety  and 
remove  all  causes  of  discontent?  Is  there  not 
quite  as  much  reason  for  relieving  their  appre 
hensions  upon  these  points,  in  regard  to  which 
they  are  much  more  sensitive,  as  in  respect  to 
your  direct  interference  in  the  States,  where 
they  know  and  you  acknowledge  that  you  have 
no  power  to  interfere  as  the  Constitution  no\v 
stands  ?  The  fact  that  you  propose  to  give  the 
assurance  on  the  one  point  and  peremptorily 
refuse  to  give  it  on  the  others,  seems  to  author 
ise  the  presumption  that  you  do  intend  to  use  the 
powers  of  the  Federal  Government  for  the  pur-^ 
pose  of  direct  interference  with  slavery  and  the 
slave  trade  everywhere  elae,  with  the  view  to  its 
indirect  effects  upon  slavery  in  the  States  ]  or, 
in  the  language  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  with  the  view 
of  its  "  ultimate  extinction  in  all  the  Stafes>  old 
as  well  as  new,,  north  as  well  as  south." 

If  you«had  exhausted  your  ingenuity  in  devis 
ing  a  plan  for  the  express  purpose  of  increasing 
the  apprehensions  and  inflaming  the  passions  of 
the  southern  people,  with  the  view  of  driving 
them  into  revolution  and  disunion,  none  could 
have  been  contrived  better  calculated  to  accom 
plish  the  object  than  the  offering  of  that  one 
amendment  to  the  Constitution,  and  rejecting 
all  others  which  are  infinitely  more  important 


15 


to  the  safety  and  domestic  tranquility  of  the 
•taveholding  States. 

la  my  opinion.  we.  have  now  reached  a  point 
where  this  agitation  must  close,  and  all  the  mat 
ters  in  controversy  lie  finally  determined  by 
constitutional  amendments,  or  civil  war  and  the 
disruption  of  the  Union  are  inevitable.  My 
friend  from  Oivgou  [Mi.  BAKER,]  who  has  ad 
dressed  tbe»Senafe  for  the  last  two  days,  will 
fail  in  his  avowed  purpose  to  "evade"  the 
question,  He  claim<  to  be  liberal  and  conser 
vative  ;  and  I  must  confess  that  he  seems  the 
most  liberal  of  any  gentleman  on  that  side  of 
the  Chamber,  always  excepting  the  noble  and 
patriotic  speech  of  the  Senator  ftorn  Connecti 
cut,  [Mr.  Dixox.]  and  the  utmost  extent  to 
which  the  Senator  from  Oregon  would  consent 
to  go,  was  to  devise  a  scheme  by  which  the  real 
question  at  issue  could  be  evaded. 

I  rtgret  the  determination,  to  which  I  appfe^ 
hend  tne  Republican  Senators  have  come,  to 
make  no  adjustment,  entertain  no  proposition, 
and  listen  to  no  compromise  of  the  matters  in 
controversy. 

I  fear,  from  all  the  indications,  that  they  are 
disposed  to  treat  the  matter  as  a  party  question, 
to  be  determined  in  caucus  with  reference  to  its 
effects  upon  the  prospects  of  their  party,  rather 
than  upon  the  peace  of  the  country  and  the 
safety  of  the  Union,  I  invoke  a  their  delibe 
rate  judgment  whether  it  is  not  a  dangerous 
experiment  for  any  political  party  to  demon 
strate  to  the  American  people  that  the  unity  of 
their  party  is  dearer  to  ttiein  than  the  Union  of 
thcsti  States.  The  argument  is,  that  the  Chicago 
platform  having  been  ratified  by  the  people  in 
a  majority  of  the  States  must  be  maintained  at 
all  hazards,  no  matter  what  the  consequences  to 
the  country.  I  insist  that  they  are  mistaken  in 
the  fact  when  they  assert  that  this  question  was 
decided  by  the  American  people  in  the  late 
election,  The  American  people  have  not  deci 
ded  that  they  preferred  the  disruption  of  this 
Government,  and  civil  war  with  all  its  horrors 
and  miseries,  to  surrendering  one  iota  of  the 
Chicago  platform.  If  you  believe  that  the  peo 
ple  are  with  you  on  this  issue,  let  the  question 
be  submitted  to  the  people  on  the  proposition 
offered  by  the  Senator  from  Kentucky,  or  mine, 
or  any  other  fair  compromise,  and  I  will  ven 
ture  the  prediction  that  your  own.  people  will 
ratify  the  proposed  amendments  to  the  Consti 
tution,  in  order  to  tak  •  this  slavery  agitation 
out  of  Congress,  arid  restore  peace  to  the  coun 
try,  and  insure  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union. 

Why  not  give  the  people  a  chance?  It  is  an 
important  crisis.  There  is  now  a  different  issue 
presented  from  that  in  the  presidential  election. 
I  have  no  doubt  that  the  people  of  Massachu 
setts,  by  an  overwhelming  majority,  are  in  fa 
vor  of  a  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  Territories 
by  an  act  of  Congress.  An  overwhelming  ma 
jority  of  the  same  people  were  in  favor  of  the 
instant  prohibition  of  the  African  slave  trade, 
on  moral  and  religious  grounds,  when  the  Con 
stitution  was  made.  When  they  found  that  the 
Constitution  could  not  be  adopted  and  the 


Union  preserved,  without  surrendering  their  ob 
jections  on  the  slavery  question,  they,  in  the 
spirit  of  patriotism  and  of  Christian  feeling^ 
preferred  the  lesser  evil  to  the  greater,  and  rati 
fied  the  Constitution  without  their  favorite  pro 
vision  in  regard  to  slavery.  Give  them  a  chance 
to  decide  now  between  the  ratification  of  these 
proposed  amendments  to  the  Constitution  and 
the  consequences  which  your  policy  will  inev 
itably  produce. 

Why  not  allow  the  people  to  pass  on  these 
questions?  All  we  have  to  do  is  to  submit 
them  to  the  States,  If  the  people  reject  them, 
theirs  will  be  the  responsibility,  and  no  harm 
will  have  been  done  by  the  reference*  If  they 
accept  them,  the  country  will  be  safe,  and  at 
peace.  The  political  party  which  shall  refuse 
•to  allow  the  people  to  determine  for  themselves 
at  the  ballot-box  the  issue  between  revolution 
and  war  on  the  one  side,  and  obstinate  adherence 
to  a  party  platform  on  the  other,  will  assume  a 
fearful  responsibility.  A  war  upon  a  political 
issue,  waged  by  the  people  of  eighteen  States 
against  the  people;  and  domestic  institutions  of 
fifteen  sister  States,  is  a  fearful  and  revolting 
thought.  The  South^will  be  a  unit,  and  desper 
ate,  under  the  belief  that  your  object  in  waging 
war  is  their  destruction,  and  not  the  preserva 
tion  of  the  Union  ;  that  you  meditate  servile  in 
surrection,  and  the  abolitioL  of  slavery  in  the 
Southern  States,  by  fire  and  sword,  in  the  na.me 
and  under  pretext  of  enforcing  the  laws  and 
vindicating  the  authority  of  the  Government, 
You  know  that  such  is  the  prevailing,  and.  I 
may  say,  unanimous  opinion  at  the  South  5  and 
that  ten  million  people  are  preparing  for  the 
terrible  conflict  under  that  conviction. 

When  there  is  such  an  irrepressible  discon 
tent  pervading  ten  million  people,  penetrating 
the  bosom  of  every  man,  woman,  and  child,  and, 
in  their  estimation,  involving  everything"  that 
is  valuable  and  dear  on  earth,  is  it  not  time  to 
pause  and  reflect  whether  there  is  not  some1 
cause,  real  or  imaginary,  for  apprehension?  If 
there  be  a  just  cause  for  it,  in  God's  name,  in 
the  name  of  humanity  and  civilization,  let  it  be 
removed.  Will  we  not  be  guilty,  in  the  sight 
of  Heaven  and  of  posterity,  if  we  do  not  re-* 
move  all  just  cause  before  proceeding  to  ex 
tremities  ?  If,  on  the  contrary,  there  be  no  real 
foundation  for  these  apprehensions  ;  if  it  be  all 
a  mistake,  and  yet  they,  believing  it  to  be  a  sol 
emn  reality,  are  determined  to  act  on  that  be 
lief,  is  it  not  equally  our  duty  to  remove  the 
misapprehension  ?  Hence  the  obligation  to  re~ 
move  the  causes  of  discontent,  whether  real  of 
imaginary,  is  alike  imperative  upon  us,  if  we 
wish  to  preserve  the  peace  of  the  country  and 
the  Union  of  the  States. 

It  matters  not.  so  far  as  the  peace  of  the 
country  and  the  preservation  Of  the  Union  are 
concerned,  whether  the  apprehensions  of  the 
southern  people  are  well  founded  or  not,  BO  long 
as  they  believe  them,  and  are  determined  to  acfc 
upon  that  belief.  If  war  comes,  it  must  have  an 
end  at  some  time  ;  and  that  termination,  I  ap 
prehend,  will  be  a  final  separation^  Whether 


16 


the  war  last  one  year,  seven  years,  or  thirty 
years,  the  result  must  be  the  same — a  cessation 
of  hostilities  when  the  parties  become  exhausted 
and  a  treaty  of  peace  recognizing  the  separate 
independence  of  eacli  section.  The  history  of 
the  world  does  not  furnish  an  instance,  wh;:rc 
war  has  raised  for  a  series  of  years  between  two 
classes  of  States,  divided  by  a  geographical  line 
under  the  same  national  Government,  which  has 
ended  in  reconciliation  and  reunion.  Extermi 
nation,  subjugation,  or  separation,  one  of  the 
three,  must  be  the  result  of  war  between  the 
northern  and  southern  States.  Surely,  you  do 
not  expect  to  exterminate  or  subjugate  ten  mil 
lion  people,  the  entire  population  of  one  sec 
tion,  as  a  means  of  preserving  amicabie  rela 
tions  between  the  two  sections  ? 

I  repeat,  then,  my  solemn  conviction  that  war 
means  disunion — final,  irrevocable,  eternal  sep 
aration.  I  see  no  alternative,  therefore,  but  a 
fair  compromise,  founded  on  the  basis  of  mu 
tual  concessions,  alike  "honorable,  just,  and  ben 
eficial  to  all  parties,  or  civil  war  and  disunion. 
Is  there  anything  humiliating  in  a  fair  compro 
mise  of  conflicting  interests,  opinions,  and  the 
ories,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  union,  and  safety? 
Read  .the  debates  of  the^  Federal  convention, 
which  formed  our  glorious  Constitution,  and 
you  will  find  noble  examples,  worthy  of  imita 
tion  ;  instances  where  sages  and  patriots  were 
willing  to  surrender  cherished  theories  and 
principles  of  government,  believed  to  be  essen 
tial  to  the  best  form  of  society,  for  the  sake  of 
peace  and  unity. 

I  never  understood  that  wise  and  good  men 
ever  regarded  mutual  concessions  by  such  men 
as  Washington,  Madison,  Franklin,  and  Hamil 
ton,  as  evidences  of  weakness,  cowardice,  or 
want  of  patriotism.  On  the  contrary,  thU 
spirit  of  conciliation  and  cornprdmise  has  ever 
been  considered,  and  will  in  all  time  be  re 
garded  as  the  highest  evidence  which  their  great 
deeds  and  immortal  services  ever  furnished  of 


their  patriotism,  wisdom,  foresight,  and  devo 
tion  to  their  country  and  their  race.  Can  we 
not  afford  to  imitate  their  example  in  this  mo 
mentous  crisis  ?  Are  we  to  be  told  that  we 
must  not  do  our  duty  to  our  country  lest  we 
injure  the  party  ;  that  no  compromise  can  be 
effected  without  violating  the  party  platform 
upon  which  we  were  elected?  Better  that  all 
party  platforms  be  scattered  to  the  winds  5  bet 
ter  that  all  political  organizations  be  broken 
up  ;  better  that  every  public  man  and  politi 
cian  in  America  be  consigned  to  political  mar 
tyrdom,  than  that  the  Union  be  destroyed  and 
the  country  plunged  into  civil  war. 

It  seems  that  party-  platforms,  pride  of  opin 
ion,  personal  consistency,  fear  of  political  mar 
tyrdom,  are  the  only  obstacles  to  a  satisfactory 
adjustment.  Have  we  nothing  else  to  live  for 
but  political  position  ?  Have  we  no  other  in 
ducement,  no  other  incentive  to  our  efforts,  our 
toils,  and  our  sacrifices  ?  Most  of  us  havachild- 
ren,  the  objects  of  our  tenderest  affections  and 
deepest  solicitude,  whom  we  hope  to  leave  be 
hind  us  to  enjoy  the  rewards  of  our  labors  in  a 
happy,  prosperous,  and  united  country,  under 
the  best  Government  the  wisdom  of  man  ever 
devised  or  the  sun  of  heaven  ever  shone  upon. 
Can  we  we  make  no  concessions,  no  sacrifices, 
for  the  sake  of  our  children,  that  they  may 
have  a  country  to  live  in,  and  a  Government  to 
protect  them,  when  party  platforms  and  politi 
cal  honors  shall  avail  us  nothing  in  the  day  of 
final  reckoning. 

In  conclusion,  I  have  only  to  renew  the  assur 
ance  that  I  am  prepared  to  cooperate  cordially 
with  the  friends  of  a  fair,  just,  and  honorable 
compromise,  in  securing  such  amendments  to 
the  Constitution  as  will  expel  the  slavery  agita 
tion  from  Congress  and  the  arena  of  Federal 
politics  forever,  and  restore  peace  to  the  coun 
try,  and  preserve  our  liberties  and  Union  as  the 
most  precious  legacy  we  can  transmit  to  our 
posterity. 


» 


